Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Leeds Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction is felt by many advisory pension councils at the Southborough Committee's Report; and will he undertake that no efficient official employed in any area office is removed in order to be replaced by a permanent civil servant?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My right hon. Friend has caused advisory councils to be made acquainted with the additional provision made by the Government for granting permanent unestablished positions to temporary salaried ex-service officials, which was included in the general settlement recently negotiated. My right hon. Friend is considering the steps to be taken to give effect to this provision in the Ministry of Pensions.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 24.
asked the Minister of Pensions how many men have been discharged as redundant in the past 12 months and how many are ex-service men; and whether, seeing that there is a large decrease in the volume of work, he will in future report non-service men to the substitution board for employment in other departments and retain the ex-service men with temporary appointments in the service of the Ministry?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I regret that it is not possible to distinguish between reductions in staff caused by voluntary resignation and redundancy, but during the last twelve months the temporary male staff, which is almost wholly ex-service, was reduced from 11,607 to 9,509. The great bulk of the temporary non-service men have been discharged long ago and, excluding medical officers and technical staff employed in institutions, there are now only five non-service men temporarily employed in the Ministry, and of these three are actually under notice. The Joint Substitution Board was specially constituted to deal with ex-service men only, and I fear therefore that the hon. Member's suggestion could not be adopted.

PENSIONABLE POSTS.

Major OWEN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the difference of opinion with regard to the effect of the Treasury agreement on the Southborough Report, he will say how many of the temporary ex-service civil servants are being offered permanent nor-pensionable posts at temporary rates of pay who would, under the Southborough Report, have been entitled to pensionable posts at full clerical officer rates of pay?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): None, Sir. Every man who would, under the Southborough Report have obtained a pensionable post at full clerical officer rates of pay, will receive such a post.

CIVIL SERVICE (GRATUITIES).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 105.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the desirability of setting aside certain moneys for the payment of gratuities to ex-service unestablished officers of the Civil Service whose services are dispensed with on the ground of age, infirmity, or reduction of staff of a similar nature to the gratuities payable under the Superannuation Act, 1887, and in the case of the death of unestablished officers under the Superannuation Act, 1914?

Mr. GUINNESS: Ex-service unestablished officers employed in Government Departments, whether employed on a temporary basis or—in accordance with arrangements recently made—on a
permanent unestablished basis, will be eligible for the benefits conferred by Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, and Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1914, and for this purpose will be allowed, subject to the usual conditions, to count all service in the Civil Service rendered after 31st August, 1921, except in certain cases in which, under existing arrangements, service prior to that date is also allowed to count.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman review the whole question?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

CONSTANT ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. W. C. ROBINSON: 8.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the constant attendance allowances, issued in respect of men 100 per cent. disabled, have been under review, and whether he will give the number of constant attendance allowances which have been reduced since 1st November?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No special review of the cases referred to has been made. The allowance in question is in all cases made for such periods and at such rates as are recommended by the medical officers of the Ministry after examination of the pensioner. My right hon. Friend regrets that no record of the number of cases in which these allowances have been either increased or reduced since the 1st November last is available.

ASSESSMENTS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 9.
also asked the Minister of Pensions whether any instructions have been issued to members of the medical boards or the audit staff that the assessment of pensions should be made on the minimum possible basis; and whether he can state the number of cases in which the assessment by the medical board has been reduced since the 1st November. 1924?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No such instructions have been issued. With regard to the latter part of the question, it has been ascertained that since the 1st
November last, the rate of assessment has been reduced after medical examination, in 12,200 cases, or 16 per cent, of the total, and has been increased in 21,300 cases, or 28 per cent, of the total. The net result of reassessment during the period has been an average increase over all the cases examined in the degree of disablement assessed amounting to as much as 2.7 per cent, in the scale of assessment.

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: 26.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he proposes to discontinue the practice whereby, when an assessment tribunal has reduced the rate at which disability is payable from 40 per cent. to 20 per cent., but upon appeal the original assessment has been restored, the pensioner is deprived of the arrears of 20 per cent. lost by him during the period intervening between the assessment and the appeal?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The date from which payment of pension can properly be claimed is that on which it is certified that the man's condition justifies the award. This general rule has been allowed to be modified in certain respects, e.g., where a final award is increased on appeal, which I gather is the case the hon. and gallant Member has in mind, payment is made from the date on which the appeal was entered, instead of the date of the medical examination of the man by the tribunal and their decision.

TREATMENT AND TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. ROBINSON: 10.
further asked the Minister of Pensions whether it is proposed to close the treatment and training centres at an early date; and whether, in exceptional cases, men are still accepted for a course of concurrent treatment and training in accordance with the arrangement authorised by his predecessor?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: These centres are being progressively closed as, in process of time, the necessity for their retention diminishes. A few cases are exceptionally still being admitted following a course of institutional treatment, where the medical officers of the Ministry make a recommendation to this effect.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Are these centres being closed because there is no demand for the training, or is it done for the purpose of economy?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: No. As I said in the first part of my answer, "in the process of time," the necessity diminishes.

ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. MELLER: 12.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received a copy of a letter issued by the chairman of the Birmingham and Sutton Coldfield War Pensions Committee with regard to the existing Regulations of the Ministry of Pensions and their effect on ex-service men and their dependants; and whether he proposes to set up a Committee of Inquiry to consider the question of pensions generally?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend has received a copy of the letter referred to. As regards the last part of the question, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the answer given by the Prime Minister in the House on the 26th ultimo, of which I am sending a copy. My right hon. Friend would add that the 'natters dealt with in the letter referred to in the question have been already, and will be further, discussed with the Central Advisory Committee of the Ministry, and that all steps practicable to deal with the points of difficulty that have arisen will be taken.

PENSIONS ISSUE OFFICE (DECENT RALISATION).

Mr. CLUSE: 13.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that the function of the Pensions Issue Office is to forward to pensioners and the local post office ring-papers and draft books respectively, and that all cash payments are made by postmasters, he will inform the House of the reasons against the decentralisation of the work to local offices?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I must apologise for the length of this answer.

HON. MEMBERS: Circulate it.

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: Does the hon. Member agree?

Mr. CLUSE: indicated assent.

The following is the answer:

The hon. Member has in mind, I presume, the decentralisation of the work of
the Pension Issue Office. It is not possible to deal adequately with this question within the normal limits of an answer, but, apart altogether from the serious dislocation of work and disturbance of the staff that would be involved by any such change, there are, in the judgment of my right hon. Friend, clear and cogent reasons both in the interests of pensioners and on grounds of efficient administration against the proposal.

It would in the first place still be necessary for the work of issue ordinarily to be done by way of post, and there would therefore be no advantage to the pensioner in the change proposed. The existing local offices of the Ministry could not accommodate the staff required for the work, and new offices would have to be obtained in every instance. There would be additional work and danger of delay and confusion arising out of the frequent removals of pensioners from one area to another. It would seriously complicate the work of the Post Office who a present have to correspond only with the separate issuing offices in London and Edinburgh. The danger of fraud and of duplicate payments would be greatly increased, and the work of auditing and accounting would be made more difficult. Further, it is clear that the cost of 131 separate issuing offices together with the central establishment which would be necessary for proper control and to deal with certain classes of pensioners, would be much greater than the cost of a centralised establishment where it is possible to deal with the work on lines of mass production.

STATISTICS.

Mr. CLUSE: 14.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state, for each of the years ended 31st December, 1921 to 1924, the number of beneficiaries, the total cost of administration, the number of permanent officers of the rank of principal clerk and above and the number of those who served with the forces during the great War, and the number of other staff of all grades, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Year ended.
Approximate Number of Beneficiaries.
Permanent Officers of rank of Principal Clerk and above.
Number of Officers in (2) who served in the Great War.
Other staff of all Grades, including local offices and institutions.




(1).
(2).
(3).
(4).


31 December, 1921
…
3,004,000
35
4
29,937


31 December, 1922
…
2,572,000
66
10
24,674


31 December, 1923
…
2,266,000
74
14
19,861


31 December, 1924
…
2,080,000
74
14
16,401


Figures of the cost of administration for calendar years are not available; the cost for the financial years was:

Year ended 31st March:






£


1922
…
…
…
5,524,100


1923
…
…
…
4,241,602


1924
…
…
…
3,461,387


1925
…
…
…
3,010,500

ERRONEOUS AWARDS.

Mr. WINDSOR: 15.
asked the Minister of Pensions what his Ministry regard as the definition of serious error for the purpose of a new award following upon the discovery of an erroneous award; and whether new assessments of 30 per cent. and under are admitted to pension?

Mr. THURTLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether pension has been issued in every case in which special boards have found that an error had been made in the previous assessment; and whether he is aware that in several hundreds of such cases the Ministry has refused to make a fresh award?

Mr. STEPHEN: 20.
asked the Minister of Pensions, seeing that the decision to reject the recommendations of special boards in favour of a pension in cases in which error in previous assessments has been found is left to officials of the Ministry, and in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the Ministry's action in this matter, if he will consider the reference of all these cases to a small advisory committee, including a representative of the ex-service community?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: An erroneous award means an award which the Minister finds to have been erroneously declared final because, as a result of a course of medical treatment and observation, it is seen to have involved a serious and permanent under estimate
of the normal extent of disablement in consequence of an error of medical diagnosis or prognosis. The cases arising in which a serious error is suggested are exceptional and few in number. Each case has necessarily to be judged on its merits, and my right hon. Friend would have no authority to modify an award, which is statutorily final, in cases where no more than a slight temporary worsening can be shown. For such cases, I would remind hon. Members that the scheme of final awards includes the provision of treatment as one of its essential features. In every case, however, where my right hon. Friend is satisfied, on the advice of his responsible advisers, medical and other, that the conditions I have stated are fulfilled, the case is recommended for a grant under special sanction. The working of the arrangements at present in force is being carefully watched and I am glad to say that, as the local medical staff of the Ministry understand better the nature of the problem involved, which necessarily differs from that involved in assessment for conditional pension, their recommendations are found in an increasing majority of cases to be justified.

CHILDREN'S ALLOWANCES.

Mr. WINDSOR: 16.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will have a copy of the minutes of the Central Advisory Committee, held on 17th February, placed in the Library for the information of Members of the House; and whether the Ministry has under consideration the withholding of part of the pension issuable to children between the ages of 14 and 16 years?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My right hon. Friend does not see his way to accept the suggestion in the first part of the question. The proceedings of the Advisory Committee are in the nature of a
free and frank discussion on the matters of administration and policy put before them, and this would not be the case if the proceedings were published and, as such, became the subject of general canvass. With regard to the latter part of the question, a suggestion was made by the Ministry in order to meet proposals made by certain advisory councils that, in the interests of motherless children, a portion of the allowance otherwise payable to any such child might be temporarily withheld between the ages of 14 and 16 if the child were at the same time at work and earning a wage, in order that, on the child attaining the age of 16, a lump sum might be available to him or her for the purchase of tools or outfit required. This suggestion, which was favourably received, has been put for the consideration of advisory councils

COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS.

Mr. WINDSOR: 17.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a circular has been issued to pensions committees modifying the procedure set up last year regarding the submission of resolutions to advisory councils of the Ministry; and, if so, whether he will place copies of the circular in the Library for the information of Members of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The only action taken in this matter has been that, following on the representations made by a war pensions committee, all committees have been informed that their statutory right to make representations directly to the Minister could not be abridged by any requirement that such representation should be made in the first instance through advisory councils. This step was necessary in view of the impression which had apparently been conveyed by a circular issued to them in the preceding year. I shall be happy to place copies of the circular referred to in the Library if this is generally desired.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. and gallant Member also place in the Library a copy of the circular to which he has referred in his answer, which has caused some uncertainty?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: That is what I said I would do. The circular which has been issued to the local pensions committees will be placed in the Library.

Mr. STEPHEN: I mean also the other one, which involved the issue of the new circular. The answer says that some uncertainty was caused by, the previous circular and that a new circular had to be issued. Will the hon and gallant Member put the old circular in the library?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It has been already issued to the committees. I do not think there could be any objection to the old circular being put in the Library, but I would like to be quite sure.

Mr. F. O. ROBERTS: Was this action taken on the representation of one particular committee?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: One committee called attention to the fact that they were entitled by Statute to make representations direct to the Minister, and as it was thought that it was intended by the circular to take away the statutory right which they had previously enjoyed, we were bound to inform them that their statutory rights still remained.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCES.

Mr. STEPHEN: 21.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the inquiry which has been made during recent months into the financial circumstances of all aged poor persons who were receiving treatment allowances as the dependants of disabled men under treatment was ordered by the Minister of the day; and, if so, what was the date of the Order?

Mr. JOHN BAKER: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state the average number of poor persons in receipt of allowances as the dependants of disabled men under treatment; now many of these allowances have been reduced as the result of recent special inquiries and the average amount of such reductions; and whether these dependants were given the opportunity to state their case against reduction to the war pension committees before the reductions were enforced?

Mr. MONTAGUE: 25.
asked the Minister of Pensions in how many cases has the treatment allowances to aged dependants of men in receipt of treatment been reduced; and, seeing that this allowance is based on the amount of separation allowance paid while the men were serving in the Navy, Army, or Air Force,
will he state the reason for the reduction, the cost of the inquiry before the reductions were made, and what economy it is anticipated will be effected?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: This answer is also very long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it!"] I will do so if the hon. Members have no objection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]

Following is the answer:

I presume the reference in these questions is to the grant under Article 6 of the Royal Warrant of temporary allowance to the dependant of an unmarried man during a course of institutional treatment which renders the man unable to support himself and his family. No special review of these allowances has been made. An allowance may, however, under the terms of the Warrant only be granted where the dependant was supported by the man before enlistment, and has been so supported since discharge up to the time the treatment commenced, and the allowance may not exceed such support as has been given, subject to the addition of a bonus of 20 per cent. Investigation is, therefore, from time to time necessary, more especially in those cases where information as to the pre-enlistment circumstances is not available from War Office records, in order to determine what the correct amount of the grant should be. No statistics are kept of the number of temporary allowances to dependants in payment at any one time, but they are comparatively few in number. In these circumstances it is not possible to say in what number of cases allowances at either an increased or reduced amount have been paid.

PAYMENTS, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 22.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that payment of disability pensions at Glasgow is made at local post offices, and that the work of issuing ring papers to pensioners and draft books to the post offices is done at Edinburgh; and whether he will state why this work is not done at the local office at Glasgow?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: The arrangement for the issue of disability pensions in Glasgow differs in no way from that in force at other places. As I stated in the reply to the hon. Member for Ardwick
on the 26th ultimo, my right hon. Friend has come to the conclusion that the decentralisation of issue of pensions would not, in present circumstances, make for efficiency or economy of working.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that there is a much greater number for which Glasgow is the natural centre, would it not be better to change from Edinburgh to Glasgow?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: It has been in Edinburgh for a certain number of years, and it would cause a considerable amount of dislocation if we changed over to Glasgow. I am not sure that I should not get a similar representation from Edinburgh if any change were made.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. THURTLE: 18.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether any change has been made in the functions and duties of the principal officers of the Ministry since the issue of the Estimates; and, if so, will he furnish particulars of the changes made and the economies resulting there from, if any?

Mr. MONTAGUE: 23.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether the system of personal access by heads of Departments to the Minister and Permanent Secretary has been abrogated in the Ministry of Pensions; whether he has approved of a scheme of re-organisation among the principal officers; and, if so, will he state what are the new designations of the principal officers and their duties, and what was the designation of each officer in February and his duties prior to the change of titles and duties?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I am sorry that a somewhat lengthy and detailed reply is necessary. There has been no change in the system of personal access by heads of divisions to my right hon. Friend the Minister, or to the Permanent Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich informed the hon. Member for Rotherhithe on the 13th March, 1924, that he personally consulted heads of divisions whenever he considered it necessary to do so, and I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend does the same.
Opportunity has been taken on the retirement of the Financial Assistant Secretary to bring abort some simplification and enonomy in the organisation of the headquarters staff. The posts of Director-General of Awards and Deputy Director-General of Awards have been abolished with an immediate saving of £2,668 a year. The new arrangement will enable my right hon. Friend to effect further economies later.
The post of Financial Assistant Secretary lapses, and the former Director-General of Awards has been appointed to a new post of Accountant-General. The duties attaching to this post are responsibility for technical advice upon financial matters, together with the control of the accounts branches and the control of the technical work of issue office. Other duties formerly attaching to the post of Financial Assistant Secretary have been divided between the Permanent Secretary and Principal Assistant Secretary. The Deputy-Director-General of Awards has been appointed to fill a vacancy which existed for an assistant secretary to take charge of awards. The title of Director of Accounts has been changed to Deputy-Accountant-General and Director of Accounts. There has been no material change in this officer's functions. A post of Deputy-Assistant Secretary (Finance) will become redundant, and the officer filling this post has been appointed as Director of Medical Contracts and Supplies.

WAGES AND CONDITIONS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the rate of wages paid and the conditions of work, including holidays, of Government servants in all the services, with a view to establishing the principle that no employés in His Majesty's service should be called upon to serve at wages insufficient for proper maintenance; and that their pay, hours of work, and provision for old age should afford an example to private employers throughout the country?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Winston Churchill): The rates of pay and conditions of service of Government servants were the subject of inquiry by the Committee on the Pay, etc., of State Servants so recently as
1923; the standing machinery of Whitley Councils exists for dealing with questions of this sort; and provision has also been made for arbitration machinery to deal with cases of disagreement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable number of Government servants who are paid wages which are not sufficient to support them, and does he not think that he might advantageously reconsider the matter in order to set an example to private employers?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir. I intended by my answer to convey an impression that we do not think it desirable to re-open this question at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON LIBRARIES.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish information as to the nature and extent of prison libraries and the extent of the use of library books by prisoners; and whether there is any provision in the prison regulations for the discretionary issue to prisoners of superior mental qualifications of a greater number of volumes than those ordinarily supplied?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): Prison libraries might no doubt be greatly improved if more money were available, and we should welcome gifts of suitable books for the use of prisoners from any quarter; but, so far as I can judge, the books we have are fairly adequate for meeting the prisoners usual requirements. Complaints from prisoners are not common, but there have been a number of complaints from prisoners of an altogether exceptional type, who find the prison libraries not at all in accordance with their taste. These have been met to a great extent by allowing prisoners to have books in from outside much more freely than was formerly the case. Obviously public moneys cannot be properly used to cater for tastes which run in the direction of abstruse mathematics, advanced science, or the less familiar Oriental languages. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to furnish the House with information as to the number of books in the different prison libraries?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I inspected one myself a month ago. It contained about 5,000 volumes. The library was not at all bad. I should be only too glad if any hon. Member would like to go and inspect these libraries.

Mr. ROBERTS: May we not have official statistics for the purpose of information?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that in every prison library without exception the book "Looking Ahead" is placed with other forms of fiction?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: ; I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, from his point of view, "Looking Backward" might be a more interesting work.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "Looking Backward" is one of the most valuable works ever published in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME (FRANCE).

Colonel APPLIN: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information as to the effect on agricultural interests in France of the introduction of Summer Time in that country?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. SEXTON: 29.
asked the Home Secretary if he has now fully considered the question of codifying all Acts of Parliament dealing with compensation for injury to workmen during their employment, the principle of which was accepted by the right hon. Member for Oswestry when acting as Home Secretary in 1923?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I stated in reply to a previous question by the hon. Member, I appreciate the importance of securing the consolidation of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and I am not losing sight of the matter, but I am not
able to say at present when it will be possible to introduce the necessary legislation.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 39.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that certain employers of labour, particularly colliery companies, are not employing Clause 16 of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, on the ground that inability of partially incapacitated men to find work is due to the labour market and not to their incapacity, thereby depriving these men of full compensation and will he take steps to amend this Clause and so prevent a continuance of this practice?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The object of the Section in question was to help the partially recovered workman who fails to obtain work as a consequence, wholly or mainly, of his injury, by allowing his compensation to be continued on the scale for total disablement. The Section was not intended to apply, and it would, I consider, be quite wrong to apply it to cases where the workman is unable to find work by reason not of his injury but of the state of the labour market. In my opinion, that is an unemployment and not a workmen's compensation problem.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the individual partially incapacitated finds it quite impossible to prove that his unemployment is due to his incapacity, because the employers will never give him evidence to justify that plea?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should not have thought that that was the case. If the hon. Member will give me an instance I will inquire into it.

Mr. RITSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of nystagmus we have had to complain to the Minister of Labour, and will he consult his 'right hon. Friend on the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will gladly consult my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — RABBIT COURSING.

Mr. PENNY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the protests of residents in various districts of the Thames Valley caused by people carrying on rabbit coursing, which
takes place principally on Sundays, in such a manner that the animals have not a fair chance of escape; and whether he will consider introducing legislation prohibiting such cruelty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: One complaint on the subject has been addressed to my Department. The Commissioner of Police informs me that coursing has taken place from time to time in the Thames Valley, but no special case of cruelty has come under notice in recent years, except on the 1st February last, on which occasion proceedings were taken against the promoters of the meeting, with the result that they were convicted and fined. Coursing of an animal in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape is already an offence under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1921.

Mr. PENNY: If I bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman cases in which cruelty is really taking place, will he take action against these people?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Apart from the question of cruelty, is it not illegal to course on the Sabbath?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really do not know the answer to that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can apply to the Home Office, so that if Sabbath breaking is going on it may be stopped?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman puts down a question I will give an answer.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that rabbit coursing is more cruel than fox hunting?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

WHITE GAUNTLETS.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether, following the experiments recently made for providing the police on point duty with white sleeves, he will try an experiment with white gauntlets, as being equally effective
and more comfortable throughout summer as well as winter far the officers who are wearing them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The possibility of using gauntlets has not been overlooked; but they are open to objections and slip-on half sleeves were considered preferable for the present experiment.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his conclusions do not coincide with those of the constables so affected?

Captain A. EVANS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that experiments have been carried out with great success for the past 18 months in the city of Leicester?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am very glad to hear it.

PORTSMOUTH (EFFICIENCY PAY).

Mr. HAYES: 43.
asked the Home Secretary the number of constables of the Portsmouth Borough Police Force who have been deprived of their efficiency pay consequent upon a Home Office letter to the chief constable as to the conditions upon which efficiency pay should be granted; whether the number of charges and summonses enters into the test of zeal and efficiency; and upon what conditions or test can the constables regain the pay in question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that 20 constables were affected, two having been in receipt of special increments under Regulation 53 and 18 of long service increments under Regulations 58 or 59. A constable's zeal and efficiency must be judged on his work as a whole, including his reports upon occurrences of all kinds. As to the restoration of the increments, the cases will come up for reconsideration after a year and the increments can then be restored if the constables are then found to be qualified in respect of zeal and efficiency and satisfy the other conditions laid down in the Regulations.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that the understanding of the term "zeal and efficiency," after the interview with the Chief Constable, is that these officers must show results for the work they have done?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must demur to that statement, which puts in another form the suggestion in the question—that charges in some instances are really matters of good conduct marks. That is not the case. Every relative consideration in regard to a constable's work is taken into account.

Mr. HAYES: Have representations been made to the right hon. Gentleman from members of the police force concerned and from police representatives of the whole country, that that is their interpretation of the understanding of "zeal and efficiency"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Naturally, all the representations which come to the Home Office do not reach me particularly. Personally, I have not had any representations. If the hon. Gentleman says that there has been any I will inquire about it.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the great importance of this to the police and the public alike, I beg to give notice that on the first opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: In this case, which seems a very exceptional case and deals with a large number of men, will the right hon. Gentleman keep a special eye open to see whether the suggestions made are really substantial?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes. I will ask for a report as to whether it is so or not.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation to support the extension of the police widows' pensions scheme to the widows of pensioners who retired prior to 1918; and, if so, when?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW OFFENCES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 32.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the very sparse amount of information given by the last published criminal statistics as to prosecutions for offences
against the Poor Law, he will in future give more detailed information; whether he will now state for the most recent year that he is able the number of prosecutions or imprisonments of casual paupers for refusal to perform task, destroying or damaging clothes or other property of the guardians, and assaults on officers, respectively; whether he is aware that some of the offences of casual paupers are occasioned by the task being more severe than that given to a criminal, and by the omission of the guardians to give relief and accommodation to which the destitute wayfarer is entitled under 43 Eliz., c. 2, and the Regulations of the Minister of Health; and whether he will review all the circumstances with a view to action being taken?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. I am afraid I am unable to supplement the information given in the published criminal statistics. I am not aware that the offences committed by casual paupers are due to either of the causes suggested in the question, though I shall be glad to give consideration to any particular case which the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice. As regards the last part of the question, I am issuing consolidated and revised Regulations in regard to the relief of casual paupers, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTHRAX.

Lord HENRY CAVENDISH - BENTINCK: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Resolution which was presented by the British Government representative at the International Labour Conference last year, asking that the question of anthrax should be placed on this year's agenda, was rejected, and that the question of the disinfection of wools and hairs is very largely an Imperial one, he will consider inviting Empire representatives to meet together with a view to securing agreement within the Empire before the question is again under discussion at an International Labour Conference?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This question has already been repeatedly discussed with representatives of the Governments of India and the Dominions
chiefly affected. Should any favourable opportunity arise for further consultation, I should be glad to seize it, but I am afraid that as matters at present stand, a renewal of the discussions would not have any useful result.

Oral Answers to Questions — LITIGATION.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the amount of time which has been occupied in the Courts in recent years in the hearing of certain cases which raise no important question of law, justice, or principle, and the waste of public money involved, he will consider taking steps to render it necessary for the parties in cases of this kind to obtain the Attorney-General's fiat before commencing proceedings?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that legislation of this kind would be either possible or desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSEBREAKING, MITCHAM.

Mr. MELLER: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a petition has been sent to the superintendent of the W Division of the Metropolitan Police, signed by nearly 180 persons resident in the vicinity of Hill Road and Caithness Road, Mitcham, calling attention to the frequent burglaries in that district and asking for better police protection; and whether he will take steps to see that the protection asked for is provided?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that this petition has been received. The Commissioner states that no case of burglary has occurred in the district in question during the past 12 months, though there have been five cases of housebreaking; and that the houses in this neighbourhood are such that access to the rear is easily gained and is difficult of detection by patrolling officers. The fullest possible protection is, however, being given.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR DRIVERS (POLICE TRAPS).

Captain BRASS: 36.
asked the Home Secretary how many motor drivers were
trapped and prosecuted by the police in the Metropolitan police area during the week-ends 14th to 16th March, 21st to 23rd March, and 28th to 30th March, respectively; and how many of those found to be exceeding the speed limits of either 10 or 20 miles per hour were prosecuted for dangerous driving and how many for exceeding the speed limits?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I could obtain for my hon. and gallant Friend the numbers of motorists trapped, but the prosecutions for recent week-ends have, of course, not yet been instituted in all cases.

Captain BRASS: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of setting traps only in connection with drivers who are driving to the danger of the public?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I have frequently informed my hon. and gallant Friend, the law contains certain enactments with regard to speed. While the law is as it is I am bound to see that it is carried out.

Captain BRASS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police traps at present are set out deliberately, after the speed limit has been exceeded, to catch the drivers? Is it not the duty of the police to prevent crime?

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that before a prosecution can ensue for exceeding the speed limit, which is a breach of the law, it is necessary to have some evidence of this being done after passing the trap?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes. It is not the duty of the police always to stand and say, "You must not do this, and you must not do that."

Captain BRASS: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate the matter.

Captain BRASS: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed in the Metropolitan police area over the week-end, 28th to 30th March, in trapping motorists for exceeding the speed limits of 10 and 20 miles per hour,
and for dangerous driving; how many traps were worked; and on what roads in the Metropolitan police area they were in operation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that in the time available it has not been possible to obtain exact figures in reply to the first two parts of this question. It would not be in the public interest for me to give the information asked for in the third part.

Captain BRASS: Do I understand that the police do not want the public to know which roads are dangerous, which is presumably the reason why they set traps, or are the traps set primarily in order to get convictions?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: In view of the fact that the new motor roads are largely contributed to by the motorists of the country, does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair that traps should be set where there is really no danger?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question has been answered half a dozen times.

Captain BRASS: No, Mr. Speaker, the second part of my question has not been answered.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary has answered questions on that subject on half a dozen previous occasions.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR CAR ACTS (FINES).

Captain BRASS: 37.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the amount of money received from fines for offences against the Motor Car Acts and the Road Acts, respectively, in England and Wales during each quarter of the year 1924?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to differentiate between Motor Car Acts and Roads Act penalties, as the Return of Exchequer Fines shows one total for all such cases.

The net amounts transmitted by Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in England and Wales to the Home Office for payment to
the Motor Tax Account during the year 1924 in respect of penalties imposed under the Motor Car Acts, 1896 and 1903, and Roads Act, 1920, were as follow:




£
s.
d.


Quarter ended—






31st March, 1924
…
25,473
10
10


30th June, 1924
…
21,334
1
4


30th September, 1924
…
28,891
11
3


31st December, 1924
…
33,847
1
10

Oral Answers to Questions — CANNABIS INDICA.

Mr. FORREST: 38.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that, in consequence of the scheduling of cannabis indica as a poison, all firms using it, even for minor manufactures of a non-deleterious nature, have had only from 26th February to 3rd April to label millions of articles; and whether, in view of the impossibility of conforming within this time with the Regulations, he will postpone the date of their enforcement and in the meantime investigate the need for their existence in these specific cases?

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the Order of the Privy Council making cannabis indica a poison, and which comes into force on 3rd April, will inflict hardship on many small shopkeepers, who are not members of the Pharmaceutical society, who stock articles, such as corn plasters, containing a small quantity of cannabis indica; and will he postpone putting into operation the Order for one month to allow them to dispose of their stocks?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 87.
asked the Minister of Health if he is prepared to delay the operation of Statutory Rule No. 198, making cannabis indica a poison, so as to allow traders time to make the necessary arrangements and also to permit representations to be made with a view to modifications of the order to meet cases of hardship which may arise?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid there is no power to postpone the operation of this Order. Under the Statute the resolution of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society for the inclusion of a substance in the Poisons Schedule takes effect one month after the order of the Privy Council Office approving it has been advertised in the "London Gazette." As the resolution was passed as long ago as
last August, ample notice has been given to all interested parties; and there do not appear to be any grounds on which the Government could properly intervene now. I am sure that no harsh measures will be taken by the Pharmaceutical Society in the enforcement of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

OPIUM CONVENTION.

Mr. FORREST: 41.
asked the Home Secretary how many Powers have ratified the Protocol concluded at the recent second opium conference in Geneva; and whether he can, as a result, make any statement as to when the central board is to come into existence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. Member refers to the Convention concluded by the second conference, one chapter of which provides for the establishment of a central board. We have not heard that any Power has so far ratified the Convention, and in view of the short time which has elapsed since the close of the conference, it is hardly probable that any have done so. The central board cannot be appointed until the convention has come into force, and the convention does not come into force until it has been ratified by ten Powers, including seven of those by whom the board is to be appointed.

LABOUR OFFICE CONFERENCE.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has appointed the delegates to the next conference of the Labour Office of the League of Nations, and whether he has decided to include a woman among them?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The delegates to the forthcoming International Labour Conference have not yet been appointed. The possibility of including a woman among them will be borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON OFFICERS.

Mr. HAYES: 42.
asked the Home Secretary whether, when a prison officer is alleged to have committed a disciplinary offence, he is charged in writing and
allowed to see any statements made against him, including entries made on records or dockets enclosing records; and, if not, will he take steps to see that this is carried out?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The officer is charged in writing, and he is shown the charge and the evidence upon which the charge is based. In my opinion that is all that is necessary.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the prison officer allowed any kind of legal representation before suffering any penalty?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not want to give an answer on that point without consideration.

Mr. HAYES: In regard to the observations that are made on the dockets, of which apparently the officer is not to have any knowledge, are these observations taken into account in deciding the punishment to be inflicted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think I could rightly prevent a superior officer writing his opinions on the docket or elsewhere. I think he is quite right.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the Standing Order which says that any charge against an officer shall be brought to his notice before punishment is inflicted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will examine the Standing Order. The charge and the evidence on which it is based are brought to his notice, but if the superior officer has any report to make I do not think I am in a position to prevent him doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 44.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now communicated to the Governments of the Dominions the Resolution, passed by this Rouse on 18th February, relating to the nationality of married women; whether lie accompanied any such communication with a recommendation urging its acceptance; and whether he has received any replies?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Resolution has been communicated to the Dominions, as indicated in my answer of the 5th March. I understand that in com-
municating it my right hon. Friend followed the practice usual in such a case and left the record of proceedings to speak for itself. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL OFFICERS (MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached on the questions marriage allowance for naval officers?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): No, Sir; but I hope that an announcement may be made shortly on this subject.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen a statement in the "Western Morning News" and other papers this morning to the effect that the Co-ordinating Committee are in favour of this, and the Admiralty are standing in the way?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I have not seen that statement.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the delay in granting something for which money has been already voted?

Mr. DAVIDSON: For the simple reason that the whole thing is being investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL CONTROL).

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of permitting the larger local authorities to develop on more healthy lines by reducing the present control by Government Departments over their expenditure of public funds, thereby effecting economy and reducing correspondence?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The question of the relations between Government Departments and local authorities, including, of course, the whole system of State subsidies, is, I think, far too wide and complicated for discussion by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROPOSED FIVE-POWER PACT.

Mr. THOMAS SHAW: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the German proposals for a five-Power pact include, with regard to the eastern frontiers of Germany, a proposal for compulsory arbitration or only for arbitration unaccompanied by compulsory obligations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asks me to say that he thinks that it would be clearly inexpedient at present to add anything on this subject to the statement which he made in this House on the 24th of March.

Mr. SHAW: Can the hon. Gentleman give any idea as to when it would be possible to make a plain statement, so that people may know what is taking place?

Mr. McNEILL: I am afraid that it is impossible for me to say that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 51.
asked the Prime Minister if he can assure the House that no proposals of reform of the House of Lords which may be brought forward by him will include any proposal to enable Members of the Second Chamber to speak in the House of Commons?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot anticipate the proposals which will be laid before Parliament when they have been formulated.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any reciprocal guarantee will be given in another place?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the abolition of the income and age limit in respect of pre-War pensioners; and, if so, when?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 3rd March to a similar question by the hon. Member for the Peebles and Southern Division of Midlothian and Peebles.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN TRADE UNION LEADERS (VISIT TO GREAT BRITAIN).

Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 55.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a visit of Russian trade union leaders to this country; and whether he will take steps to ensure that such visit shall not be used for the purposes of Communist propaganda?

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that members of the All-Russian Central Trade Union Soviet have landed in this country, and whether he will take steps to see that their visit is not used for the purpose of breaking the agreement about propaganda?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will answer these questions together. Yes, I have had my attention specially drawn to these persons who have been admitted on the assumption that they will confine themselves, while in this country, to the purposes for which they have come, namely, the discussion of trade union matters. I will not now anticipate the action which might be taken if this assumption proved to be incorrect.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it a fact that the free election of trade union delegates in Russia is forbidden by the Soviet Government and that these gentlemen are merely nominated and are not representative of the workers in Russia?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can answer only as to the rumour that I have heard. I have no official information.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delegates are duly appointed delegates representing organised labour in Russia?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for the Home Office,

Oral Answers to Questions — OFFICE WORKERS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to introduce any measure to safeguard office workers against dangerous and insanitary conditions of work?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No such measure is at present in contemplation. I would point out that offices are subject
to various provisions of the Public Health Acts and that overcrowding and other in-sanitary conditions in offices can be dealt with by the local authorities under these powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — DERRICK-CRANE ACCIDENT.

Mr. DENNISON: 57.
asked the Home Secretary if the five-ton derrick crane which collapsed in Waterloo Place, Pall Mall, on 26th March, was tested on the site; if so, when and by whom; what was the nature of the test; and whether, in view of the comparative frequency of similar types of accidents during the erection of buildings, he proposes to introduce regulations which may prevent their recurrence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: So far as I have been able to ascertain no special test was made on the site, but the investigation is not completed. Draft Regulations are being discussed at the present time with the building industry and include a requirement regarding the examination of cranes, but on the information at present available it is not clear that this accident could have been prevented by such examination.

Mr. DENNISON: May I assume that the Department has been making inquiries into these accidents for the past two years; and may we expect a report on the subject at an early date?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes; I think if the hon. Member will put down a question next week I may be able to give him some information.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITAL TOMBOLAS.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 59.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that hospital tombolas, which have been the means of raising several hundred pounds to promote the work of hospitals, have been repressed by the police authorities; and whether he will consider the issue of Regulations that these voluntary efforts to assist hospitals should not be discouraged?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no authority to issue instructions which would have the effect of exempting offenders of a particular class from the penalties prescribed by law.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER VANS, LONDON (SPEED LIMIT).

Captain T. J. O'CONNOR: 60.
asked the Home Secretary upon how many occasions have prosecutions been instituted against the drivers of newspaper delivery vans for exceeding the speed limit or driving to the public danger along the Victoria Embankment during the year ending 31st December, 1924; and the corresponding figures for all vehicles using the embankment during that period?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: To extract the particulars which the hon. and gallant. Member desires to have from the records of convictions at Scotland Yard would entail a very laborious search which I do not think would be justified by the results.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries with reference to the working of police traps on the Embankment?

Captain O'CONNOR: In view of the fact that the speed limit is frequently exceeded on the Embankment by these vehicles, which seem to pass through the police traps with impunity, can he say whether there is an entente cordiale between the newspapers and the police?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is quite a different question, and it was not what was in my mind when I replied to the hon. and gallant Member, but I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

RATE-AIDED BOARDING SCHOOLS.

Colonel DAY: 62.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of rate-aided boarding-schools in agricultural parishes, and where they are situated?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): As the reply to this question is rather long, I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

On the 1st October, 1923, there were 36 secondary schools in receipt of rate-aid as well as grants from the Board, which were situated in rural districts and which contained boarders. I could not, without
considerable labour and trouble, collect more recent details, but I have no reason to think that the number of such schools has materially altered. The schools are situated as follows: one each in Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hampshire, Herefordshire, Huntingdonshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire (Lindsey), Northamptonshre, Oxfordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Wiltshire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire; two each in Devonshire, Dorsetshire, Gloucestershire, Lincolnshire (Holland), Somersetshire, Sussex (West), Westmorland, and Worcestershire; and three each in Kent and Warwickshire.

CONTINUATION COURSES.

Mr. GEORGE HARVEY: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Education what percentage of the scholars leaving elementary schools at the usual age of 14 take advantage of the facilities afforded for continued education; and is every encouragement given to such continuation scholars to specially help them forward in subjects of use to them in their working life?

Lord E. PERCY: The number of students between the ages of 14 and 15 attending part-time technical courses, continuation courses (including day continuation courses), courses at schools of art or art classes was, in the year 1922–23 (the latest year for which complete returns are available), 114,504; the number of elementary school leavers in that year was 470,877. It would, therefore, appear that about 24 per cent. of the leavers proceeded to attend part-time continuation courses. In addition to these, a substantial number of children, on leaving the elementary schools, proceeded to junior full-time technical and commercial courses. As regards the second part of the question, generally speaking, authorities provide instruction bearing on commercial and on industrial occupations, in addition to more general instruction.

Mr. WILLIAM GREENWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that Oldham has the highest percentage throughout the country?

TEACHERS' TRAINING.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether
the Committee inquiring into the training of teachers is expected to report before Easter?

Lord E. PERCY: I am informed that the Committee are now obtaining final revises of their Report, and that they expect to present it shortly after Easter.

INSTITUTIONS (BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN).

Mr. BROAD: 65.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the liabilities imposed on various local education authorities by the practice of the governors of various institutions placing children with foster parents within a few months of their birth in an area other than that of their birth, or to which their parents belong; that the residence of such children in the said area may be anything over six months, but that they are usually returned to the institution at the age of three years; and, as under the Education (Institutional Children) Act, 1923, the area in which these children have been temporarily resident is held to be chargeable for their education, will he take steps to secure such amendment to the law as will provide that a child resident in an institution or boarded out by and at the expense of that institution shall be deemed to belong to the area of its parents, or, if illegitimate, of its mother?

Lord E. PERCY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant. Member for the Waterloo Division of Lancashire (Captain Bullock) on the 16th March. I am aware of the particular difficulty to which the hon. Member refers, but I think the remedy he suggests in the last part of his question would merely give rise to other difficulties, since it is often impossible to say to what area the parents of a child who is maintained in an institution belong.

TEACHERS' SALARIES (LORD BURNHAM'S AWARD).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether ho has any statement to make with regard to the award on teachers' salaries given by Lord Burnham; and whether, in particular, he is prepared to take steps to ensure that all local educational authorities shall accept the appropriate standard scales?

Lord E. PERCY: I am not yet in a position to make any statement with
regard to the award, but I hope to be able to announce the decision of the Government at an early date.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (EXTERNAL STUDENTS).

Mr. HARRIS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any formal communication has passed between Lord Ernle, the late Chairman of the Departmental Committee on the Constitution of the University of London, and the Chairman of Convocation of the University with regard to the future of the external side of the University; and, if so, what was the nature of such communication?

Lord E. PERCY: The late Chairman of the Departmental Committee addressed a letter to the Chairman of Convocation on 27th January last inviting Convocation to give evidence before the Committee. In the course of that letter it was stated that the Committee hoped that Convocation would not undertake the labour of preparing and giving evidence on the general question of the continuance of the external examinations conducted by the University, because, in the view of the whole Committee, those examinations had in the past served, and would in the future serve, a useful purpose.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that there is no truth in the attacks which were made on external students at the last Election in connection with the University; and may I take it that there is no reason to fear that the position of the external students will be attacked or interfered with?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think I am called upon to reply to the election addresses issued at the last Election.

WELSH LANGUAGE (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. MORRIS: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the teaching of the Welsh language will hold its sittings and receive evidence in public?

Lord E. PERCY: As the Departmental Committee in question has not yet held its inaugural meeting for the discussion of procedure, the point to which the hon. Member refers has not been considered.

Mr. MORRIS: In view of the public interest taken in this Committee in Wales, will the Noble Lord give instructions that its sittings should be held in public?

Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir. The Committee is composed entirely or practically of Welshmen, and I do not propose to give them instructions as to what they are to do.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the Noble Lord quite satisfied that he has on this Committee a proper proportion of people who speak Welsh?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir; I am entirely satisfied.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is it intended that the proceedings should be conducted in Welsh?

Lord E. PERCY: That also is a question which can be left to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM (SCIENCE LIBRARY).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can see his way to arrange for the science library at the South Kensington Museum to be open in the evening in order to give facilities to students who are unable to use it in the daytime?

Lord E. PERCY: Arrangements are being made for the science library at the Science Museum to be kept open until 8 p.m. on two evenings a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SUBSIDY HOUSES (SALE).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if lie is aware that considerable profiteering is taking place in the resale of subsidy houses; and will he make it a condition of the grant of any subsidy that no house shall be sold within five years of receipt of subsidy at a higher price than that on which the subsidy was granted?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that considerable profiteering is taking place in the re-sale of subsidy houses. It is open to any local authority, with my approval, to make a condition on the lines suggested by the hon. Member,
and I have, in fact, already approved similar conditions being included in schemes of local authorities.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the various local authorities or circularise them on this point so that they may protect the public against the profiteering which is taking place in certain cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it is necessary to issue a circular but I would not hesitate to give advice to any particular local authority if I found it necessary or to impose conditions of this kind.

CONDEMNED HOUSES (SOUTHWARK).

Colonel DAY: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the number of condemned houses in the borough of Southwark which are still inhabited; the number of persons who occupy these houses; and what arrangements are contemplated for the housing of the occupants of these houses during the demolition and rebuilding of same?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not complete information to enable me to state the number of condemned houses and the number of persons occupying such houses in Southwark. In all cases in which the demolition of houses under a scheme for the clearance of an insanitary area is contemplated provision is made for rehousing the tenants in new buildings or otherwise.

FLATS, WHICKHAM.

Mr. WHITELEY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Whickham Urban Council, County Durham, have decided to undertake the building of flats in their new housing schemes; and whether he intends to refuse sanction for such, seeing the evil effect of this system in this district during the past years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The scheme to which the hon. Member refers has been submitted to and approved by me. The dwellings proposed to be erected by the urban district council are well arranged, self-contained two-storey fiats. The Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 specifically provide for the inclusion of fiats as eligible for subsidy, and where a local authority prefers this type of dwelling, I see no reason to interfere with their discretion in the matter.

Mr. WHITELEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the fact that in this particular district and in the district next to it there is a large number of flats, which have created a good deal of ill-health among the people owing to their construction?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not sure of that, and in any case it does not seem to me to be relevant to the particular case of these fiats, which are not calculated to cause ill-health to the inhabitants.

BUILDING RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. LOUGHER: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the complaints of builders as to restrictions imposed by building inspectors acting under local authorities, and to the prolonged delays in obtaining sanction to build; and whether his Department can make such arrangements as will tend to speed up the official procedure of local authorities and the discontinuance of Regulations under which builders and contractors are subject to delay and heavy expense in the execution of their work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the approval of plans under local by-laws. Section 158 of the Public Health Act, 1875, already provides that local authorities shall signify in writing their approval or disapproval of plans submitted to them within one month. I have no reason to think that there is any general cause for complaint, but if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind, I shall be glad if he will let me know of them.

BUILDING INDUSTRY (APPRENTICESHIP).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: 85.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is requiring the fulfilment of the apprenticeship agreement in the case of all contracts for the erection of houses under the Acts of 1923 and 1924?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is a condition of approval of housing schemes of local authorities under both the Housing Acts of 1923 and 1924 in localities where local building industry committees are in existence that contracts for the erection of houses shall contain provisions for the employment by the contractor of apprentices in the ratio of not less than one
apprentice for every three building trade craftsmen employed by him on or in connection with the housing contract.

Mr. GREENWOOD: Would not that be applied to Weir houses?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think that Weir houses are covered by the operations of the building industry committee.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May not Weir houses be houses coming under a local authority's scheme under the Act of 1924, receiving subsidy, and, therefore, that condition regarding apprentices should apply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the conditions are applicable at all, because, as I understand, Weir houses do not require skilled craftsmen to build them, and the object of the apprenticeship scheme is to increase the supply of skilled labour in those trades where it is now deficient.

SUBSIDY, TOTTENHAM.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 89.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that. Mr. W. A. Wilson, of 83, Lansdowne Road, Tottenham, at the invitation of the Tottenham Urban District Council, attended a conference of local builders at Tottenham Town Hall in May, 1923, at which the chairman of the council gave an assurance to those present that if they proceeded to erect houses they would rank for subsidy purposes; that Mr. Wilson subsequently built 10 flats in Lansdowne Road for letting purposes, and that he has now been refused the subsidy on the ground that he commenced to build six weeks too soon, and before the local authority had submitted their scheme; and, in view of the fact that this small builder, after building houses to let in good faith, has been penalised to the extent of £750, will he give special consideration to the exceptional circumstances and hardship arising from this case?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This application has been very fully considered. I understand that the statement in the first part of the question is not accepted by the council as representing the facts, and, in the circumstances, I am afraid that I am not in a position to vary the decision which has been given.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this small builder is faced with ruin on account of a mere technicality, and will he look into this case personally?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have looked into this case personally, and I am sorry I cannot vary the decision which has been come to. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, which I have investigated, it would be impossible for me to take any other decision than that which has hem taken.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of all the builders who attended this meeting this was the only builder who proceeded to build houses to let, and that he has been penalised to the extent of £750?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that only shows the rashness of this particular builder.

NEW HOUSES (RETURNS).

Major BIRCHALL: 98.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will publish weekly, on a fixed day, the most recent returns showing the number of new houses commenced and completed, respectively, under the 1923 and 1924 Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Returns of progress, under the Housing Acts, are obtained monthly, and I shall be happy to arrange for their periodical circulation in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not think that I can fairly ask local authorities to furnish more frequent returns.

The following STATEMENT gives the required particulars in respect
of the several Unions in which the Boroughs or Districts mentioned are wholly or partly
included.


Borough or District.
Union in which borough or district is included.
Number of persons per 1,000 of estimated population in receipt of Poor Law
relief on 21st March, 1925, in the Unions mentioned in column 2.


1.
2.
3.


Wednesbury M.B.
…
…
…
West Bromwich
…
21.3


West Bromwich C B.
…
…
…


Darlaston U.D.
…
…
…
Walsall
…
47.5


Walsall C.B.
…
…
…


Bilston U.D.
…
…
…
Wolverhampton
…
27.5


Wolverhampton C.B.
…
…
…


Dudley C.B.
…
…
…
Dudley
…
11.6


Tipton U.D.
…
…
…


Birmingham C.B.
…
…
…
Birmingham
…
29.6


West Bromwich
…
21.3


The above figures as to persons in receipt of Poor Law relief do not include lunatics in asylums, persons in receipt of medical relief only, and casuals.

MEDICAL OFFICERS' REPORTS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 100.
asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange that medical officers of health, in their forthcoming and future annual Reports, shall state whether or not there is, in their opinion, a shortage of housing available for the working classes in the several parts of their districts; and whether he will define the standard of shortage for the purpose of such Report?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will give careful consideration to my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I doubt whether it is practicable to define such a standard as is contemplated for general application.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider other means of obtaining some record of the shortage, say, for instance, a return of ratepayers?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. SHORT: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the number per thousand of the population in receipt of Poor Law relief in Wednesbury, West Bromwich, Darlaston, Tipton, Walsall, Bilston, Wolverhampton, Dudley, and Birmingham, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

SICKNESS BENEFIT.

Mr. HAYDAY: 77.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act, Part I, who were in receipt of sickness benefit for the years ending December, 1921, 1922, 1923, and 1924, respectively; and the total amounts paid in sickness benefits for the same respective periods?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

It is not possible to give the number of persons who were in receipt of sickness benefit for each year as no occasion has arisen for requiring approved societies to keep such statistics, and the necessary data are, therefore, not available.

The total number of persons insured under the National Health Insurance Act, and the total amounts paid in sickness benefits (including disablemeJt benefit) in England and Wales for the respective periods specified in, the question are approximately as follow:—


Year ending
Total Number of Insured Persons.
Total Amounts paid in Sickness Benefits.





£


December, 1921
…
13,353,000
9,861,000


December, 1922
…
13,387,000
11,560,000


December, 1923
…
13,445,000
11,533,000


December, 1924
…
13,573,000
13,028,000

SURPLUS FUNDS.

Mr. TINNE: 82.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the large unspent accumulated health insurance funds; and, having regard to the unremunerative services rendered by voluntary hospitals to insured persons, will he bring influence to bear upon the approved socie ties to make suitable contributions out of this surplus to the funds of voluntary hospitals treating insured persons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that for some time considerable
sums have been paid yearly by societies to voluntary hospitals out of disposable surplus, and I hope these sums may be increased in the future. The matter is, however, primarily one for consideration by societies, though it will no doubt with other similar questions be reviewed by the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance now sitting.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would it be practical to make certain contributions from this surplus towards medical research work?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I do not think it would.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is not this also a matter for consideration by the Department with a view to reducing the weekly contribution?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No. Schemes for the disposal of these surpluses have to be approved by the Department, and are submitted by the approved societies to the Department.

Sir J. NALL: If, in fact, these surpluses are continuing to grow, does it not indicate that the present weekly contribution is too high?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of that question.

DRUGS LIST (REMOVAL OF NAME).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 99.
asked the Minister of Health whether, acting on a report recently made to him by an inquiry committee under Part VII of the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, he has removed the name of a certain firm from the list of persons supplying drugs or appliances in the area of the London Insurance Committee; and will he state the reason why the name of the firm has been withheld, having regard to the fact that a decision of this kind closely concerns the general public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the name of the firm has been communicated to all insurance committees, but it has never been customary to publish the names of firms removed from the list, and I do not consider that it is necessary in the public interest or equitable to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALL-POX, KETTERING.

Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAM-BULLER: 79.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of small-pox due to the outbreak in Kettering, and the percentage of the persons thus affected who have been vaccinated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Up to the 30th March 71 cases of small-pox were notified in the Urban District of Kettering and seven in the rural district. Of the total of 78 patients, the vaccinal condition of one was doubtful, 11,. or 14.1 per cent., were stated to have been vaccinated in infancy, and one at five years old. It should be stated that none of these vaccinated patients had been re-vaccinated, and all of them, with the exception of one patient, aged 25, were over 39 years of age.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.

Mr. COMPTON: 81.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to a recent County Court decision, where the Judge decided that the function of boards of guardians was to relieve destitution and that these had no power to enter into contractoral arrangements for granting money on loan to the ratepayers; and whether he will circularise the boards to this effect?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), in reply to a similar question, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL INSTITUTIONS (WOMEN VISITORS).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 83.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that over 30,000 women patients of unsound mind are detained in borough and county mental hospitals where there is no lady member on the visiting committee; and whether he proposes to take any steps to make it compulsory, if necessary by legislation, that in all these public institutions where women of unsound mind are detained there shall be some of their own sex on the visiting committees?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is no doubt aware that a Clause was
included in the Mental Treatment Bill which I prepared and had introduced in another place in 1923, requiring that two members at least of every visiting committee should be women. The importance of the presence of women on visiting committees is fully recognised, and the matter has already been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Lunacy and Mental Disorder.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUBERCULOSIS (SPAHLINGER TREATMENT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 84.
asked the Minister of Health what steps, if any, he has taken to secure a supply of the Spahlinger treatment for tuberculosis sanatoria, in this country; and whether he would give financial assistance to any local authority who obtain a supply of this serum for the use in their institutions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I may say that all practicable steps have been taken by my Department to secure a supply of M. Spahlinger's preparations for scientific investigation, and I regret that I am still without information as to when such a supply will be available in this country. As regards the second part, this question will be considered if and when it arises.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps have been taken to ascertain whether or not it is possible to secure a supply?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Repeated communications have been exchanged with M. Spahlinger himself.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that the reason why he cannot supply the serum is that he has exhausted the whole of his personal funds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That may be a reason for not supplying the serum, but it is not the only question on which I have been unable to obtain information from M. Spahlinger.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCARLET FEVER (TOXIN AND ANTITOXIN).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 86.
asked the Minister of Health if his Department
and the Medical Research Council have now sufficiently examined the efficacy of the toxin and antitoxin for test, prevention and cure of scarlet fever, as officially used in several of the United States of America; and with what result?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Investigations are being actively pursued in my Department and by the Medical Research Council, and the results will be published from time to time as knowledge is gained. I am advised that these investigations entail prolonged laboratory and clinical observations before a confident statement of the efficacy of these several procedures can be made on the strength of their trial in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — GUNNERSBURY ESTATE (PLAYING FIELDS).

Mr. CADOGAN: 88.
asked the Minister of Health whether the town councils of Acton and Ealing have approached him with the object of obtaining his sanction for the raising of the loan to purchase the Gunnersbury estate; and, if so, whether, if he grants his sanction, he will make it a condition, in view of the shortage of recreation grounds for the working population of London, that a considerable portion of the estate shall be reserved for the purposes of playing fields which can be used by the public?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No application has yet been made for sanction to a loan. If such an application is received, the suggestion of my hon. Friend will receive careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREVENTION AND CURE OF DISEASE (RESEARCH).

Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS: 90.
asked the Minister of Health the amount of money spent on the prevention and cure of tuberculosis; the amount spent similarly on cancer; and the amount spent on research work for the prevention and cure of disease, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It would be difficult to estimate with any exactness the amount of the expenditure from public funds which contributes to the prevention of tuberculosis. As regards the cost of
treatment, the estimated gross expenditure of local authorities during 1924–25 is £2,850,000. As regards cancer, the hon. Member is doubtless aware that no State-aided scheme of treatment is in force on the lines of the tuberculosis scheme. Considerable sums are, however, being spent on cancer research from private sources, such as the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the British Empire Cancer Campaign. There is also a co-ordinating Departmental Committee on Cancer at th 3 Ministry of Health, on which £2,300 was spent in 1924–25. As regards the third part of the question, the Vote for the Medical Research Council for the year 1924–25 was £140,000; and during that year a further sum of approximately £5,000 was spent out of the Ministry of Health Vote on research work, including the work of the Committee on Cancer.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (REMISSION AND SURCHARGES).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 91.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to bring before Parliament a short Bill, making it incumbent upon his Department to submit for the approval or otherwise of Parliament any proposal for the remission of surcharges against local authorities by the Government or district auditors when these surcharges amount to a sum exceeding £500?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The remission of surcharges can always be discussed either on the Ministry of Health Estimates or on other suitable occasions; and in view of the heavy calls on the time of Parliament, I doubt whether there would be any advantage in the proposed change.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amount of these surcharges which have been remitted is any large percentage of the whole?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF, MANCHESTER.

Mr. COMPTON: 93.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Manchester who were in receipt of Poor Law relief in September, 1924, and subsequent months; the amount paid for the respec-
tive months; the approximate ages of the recipients; and how many were exservice men?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A reply has been prepared giving such information as

MANCHESTER UNION.


Month.
Average No. of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of domiciliary relief.
Amount of domiciliary-relief given in money or kind.
Average No. of persons in receipt of institutional relief.


1.
2.
3.
4.


1924.


£



September (4 weeks)
…
19,364
20,750
6,882


October (4 weeks)
…
18,516
20,775
6,937


November (5 weeks)
…
18,957
26,098
7,020


December (4 weeks)
…
18,693
23,076
7,186


1925.






January (5 weeks)
…
19,846
28,314
7,312


February (4 weeks)
…
20,381
23,056
7,473

Of the total number of persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 1st January, 1925, 48 per cent. were under 16 years of age, 48 per cent. between 16 and 70 years of age, and 4 per cent. were over 70 years of age. The corresponding percentages for those in receipt of institutional relief were 31, 61 and 18.

Ex-service men and their dependants constituted 32 per cent. of the persons in receipt of domiciliary relief on the 3rd May, 1924, and 11 per cent. of the persons in receipt of institutional relief.

(The above figures are exclusive of lunatics in asylums, persons in receipt of medical relief only and casuals.)

Oral Answers to Questions — NECESSITOUS AREAS (GRANTS).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 94.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in all the heavy iron and steel districts the recent change in unemployment benefit regulations is throwing a larger number of unemployed men on to the rates, which are already much higher than the average for the whole country; and, in view of this added burden on districts already heavily over-rated, will the Government again consider the possibility of granting some assistance to these areas so as to more nearly equalise the burden of unemployment on the local rates throughout the country?

is available; but as it contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars circulated:

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a similar question put by the hon. Member on Tuesday last.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that things have been getting considerably worse in the past few weeks, and will he therefore reconsider the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the Prime Minister's answer.

Mr. THOMSON: Is there no hope?

Oral Answers to Questions — ASYLUM INMATES (PROPERTY).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 96.
asked the Minister of 'Health whether his attention has been called to the fact that it is the practice of Poor Law guardians, after an inmate has been detained for three years in an asylum, to dispose of his or her property, including gold rings and other valuable belongings or articles personally precious to the owner, in order that the proceeds may be applied to the cost of the inmate's maintainance; and will he have investigations made into this practice or, alternatively, legislation introduced to prevent a state of things so prejudicial to these inmates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware of the existence of any such practice as
is suggested in the question, but I should be glad to inquire into any particular case which the hon. Member may have in his mind.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I make a request to the Minister that the belongings of these patients should be given to their relatives on their entry to the hospital?

Mr. RICHARDSON: 97.
also asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a lady, T. C., a past inmate of Hanwell mental hospital, has been refused all her previous correspondence, books, diaries and testimonials of 15 years' nursing career, together with many other valuable belongings; and will he state upon whose authority this has been done and take measures to put a stop to such practice in the case of inmates who have been incarcerated for more than three years in asylums?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Inquiries are being made in regard to the matter.

Mr. RICHARDSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will ask the authority to give up to the relatives of this lady such things as clothing and trinkets, which have been retained for a very long period, and which are absolutely necessary. I would also ask that the Minister should be good enough to remember that these people's—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—belongings, clothing, etc., are useless to them on their discharge after such long periods of detention?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPER-TAX.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: 101.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of Super-tax payers, and their total income?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 109.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated number of persons liable to Super-tax during the financial year ended 31st March, 1924; what was the estimated total income of those persons for Super-tax purposes; and their estimated average individual income?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of persons who will ultimately be charged to
Super-tax for the year 1923–24 is estimated to be 89,000, with a total income of £510,000,000, and an average individual income of £5,730. These estimates are necessarily provisional and are subject to revision.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of that fact that Super-tax payers contribute so much more of their total wealth than any other section of the community, could not something be done to increase their number by encouraging the industry of this country?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Could the right hon. Gentleman give, say, a rough estimate of how much they left after they had paid their Super-tax?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: 102.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number of Income Tax payers and their total income?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The estimated total actual income liable to Income Tax for the year 1923–24 was about £2,300,000,000. The approximate number of individuals liable to tax (that is, with a total income exceeding £135 assessable income) was 5,000,000, of whom about 2,400,000 actually paid tax. These estimates are subject to revision.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVEMENT-OWNED AND EX-ENEMY SHIPS.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 104.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the capital amount still due from purchasers of Government-owned ships on 1st January, 1925; and what was the balance outstanding at the same date on account of the sale of ex-enemy ships taken over under the Peace Treaty on behalf of the Reparation Commission?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. The capital amount remaining to be collected from purchasers of Government-owned ships and payable by instalments amounted on the 1st January, 1925, to £497,427. The amount outstanding at the same date in respect of the sale of ex-enemy ships taken over under the Peace Treaty was £1,708,227.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: How far, may I ask, does the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister propose to go to-night in the event of getting the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to make sure of getting Supply—the first item—[Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1925–26]—Committee. I should very much like, if the House would be disposed to give it me, afterwards to get the Committee stage of the four Consolidation Bills. These are: Housing Bill [Lords], Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords], Town Planning Bill [Lords], and Town Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords]. We are anxious to get them passed into Jaw. There is no controversial matter in them, I think.

Mr. MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us the business he proposes to take next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to take the Estimates for the Scottish Boards of Agriculture and Health, in Committee: and the Report stage of Clause 1 Buildings Votes.
On Tuesday we shall put down a Resolution to suspend the operation of certain Sections of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, 1921, and the Forestry Bill, adjourned Debate on the Second Reading. At 8.15 there are Private Members' Motions, as usual.

On Wednesday there will be consideration of the following Bills: Agricultural Returns, Importation of Pedigree Animals, Guardianship of Infants, Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance), Former Enemy Aliens (Disabilities Removal), Charitable Trusts, Air Ministry (Croydon Aerodrome Extension) and the Imperial Institute. At 8.15 there will be Private Member's Motion.

On Thursday there will be the Motion for the Easter Adjournment.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, if time permit, we shall take other Orders on the Paper.

Mr. MacDONALD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what, is the wording of the Resolution which he will put down for Tuesday? It is very important that we should have it.

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get it on the Paper to-night. I might tell the House that every effort will be made to have the Papers ready by to-morrow, and, if not, they will be circulated during the week-end. The reason we have not been able to make this announcement till now is that the agreement was only approved by the Reparation Commission last night. Of course it is desirable to get it through as quickly as possible.

Motion made, and Question put.
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 121.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Betterton, Henry B.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Chapman, Sir S.


Albery, Irving James
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Christle, J. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Blundell, F. N.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.Derby)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Clarry, Reginald George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Briggs, J. Harold
Clayton, G. C.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Atkinson, C.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cooper, A. Duff


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Bullock, Captain M.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Burman, J. B.
Crook, C. W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Bennett, A. J.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Berry, Sir George
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert


Bethell, A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hutchison, G. A. C.(Midl'n & Peebles)
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remnant, Sir James


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jacob, A. E.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Drewe, C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Ropner, Major L.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G, M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Elveden, Viscount
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Salmon, Major I.


England, Colonel A.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Savery, S. S.


Fielden, E. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel. (Renfrew, W)


Finburgh, S.
Lougher, L.
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Fleming, D. P.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Ford, P. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. V.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ. Belfst)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Skelton, A. N.


Forrest, W.
Lumley, L. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fraser, Captain Ian
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Frece, Sir Walter de
MacIntyre, Ian
Smithers, Waldron


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gates, Percy
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gee, Captain R.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Grace, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Margesson, Captain D.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Gretton, Colonel John
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Grotrian, H. Brent
Meller, R. J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Croydon, S.)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tinne, J. A.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Harrison, G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hartington, Marquess of
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Haslam, Henry C.
Murchison, C. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisie)


Hawke, John Anthony
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Watts, Dr. T.


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wells, S. R.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Neville, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Connor, T. J, (Bedford, Luton)
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hilton, Cecil
Pennefather, Sir John
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Penny, Frederick George
Wolmer, Viscount


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Womersley, W. J.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Holt, Captain H. P.
Pilcher, G.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Homan, C. W. J.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Climb., N.)
Radford, E. A.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raine, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Ramsden, E.
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Huntingfield, Lord
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel
Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Charleton. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth. Pontypool)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Groves, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Connolly, M.
Grundy, T. W.


Barnes, A.
Cove, W. G.
Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)


Barr, J.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W R. Normanton)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Broad, F. A.
Dennison, R.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Bromfield, William
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hardie, George D.


Bromley, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Harris, Percy A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Gillett, George M.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, Rt. Hon-Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Hayday, Arthur


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Hayes, John Henry




Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Potts, John S.
Thurtle, E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben
Varley, Frank B.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Scurr, John
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kenyon, Barnet
Sexton, James
Westwood, J.


Lansbury, George
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lee, F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, W.


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wignall, James


Lowth, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


March, S.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Montague, Frederick
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris, R. H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Windsor, Walter


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stamford, T.W.
Wright, W.


Naylor, T. E.
Stephen, Campbell



Oliver, George Harold
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Owen, Major G.
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A.
Warne.


Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)



Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

FORMER ENEMY ALIENS (DISABILITIES REMOVAL) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in. the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

CHINA INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]).

Report to lie upon the Table.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

First Report, from the Select Committee brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords]): Mr. Sandeman Allen, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Atkinson, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir Patrick Hastings, Sir Gerald Hohler, Sir Malcolm Macnaghten, Mr. Neville, Major Owen, Mr. Rawlinson, Mr. Rentoul, Mr. Robinson, Sir Henry Slesser, the Lord Advocate, and Mr. Wallhead.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members
from Standing Committee B: Mr. Buxton and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Brass and Mr. Westwood.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions Continuation) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Lord Apsley; and had appointed in substitution: Major Salmon.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Rochdale in connection with their several undertakings; to consolidate the local rates leviable in the borough; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes." [Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the London and North Eastern Railway Company to construct new railways, widenings, and other works, and to acquire lands; to extend the time for the completion of certain works and for the compulsory purchase of certain lands; and for other purposes." [London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Holley District Gas Company to supply electricity; and for other purposes." [Holley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [Lords.]

Rochdale Corporation Bill [Lords],

London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill [Lords],

Holley District Gas Company (Electricity Supply) Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1925–26.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House, having regard to the serious economic conditions prevailing in this country, urges the Government to consider every means of increasing the economic prosperity of the Empire and, in particular, to facilitate emigration in co-operation with the Dominions, and to encourage the development of the natural resources of the Crown Colonies and other Dependencies.
4.0 P.M.
I have drawn this Amendment as widely as I could in order that the discussion might be as general as possible, but in the observations which I propose to make I am going to devote myself entirely to the subject of emigration, and leave others to deal with other points connected with this subject. When I was fortunate enough to win the place in the Ballot which gave me this opportunity, I chose this subject of Empire emigration, not from any reason of personal experience or knowledge of the Empire, but because for a long time I have thought that this is far away the most important subject with which any Government of this country has to deal, and, while I wish the House clearly to understand that I do not in any way pose as an expert in this subject, I do claim to represent in a sense the feelings of a large number of people in this country who follow with interest the fortunes of our great Empire, and who are sincerely desirous of seeing those interests furthered as far as possible. In a word, I represent what I might call the opinion of the man in the street.
A great deal of attention in recent times has been given to this subject, and it has figured very prominently in recent
pronouncements of policy coming from the party which is now responsible for the Government of the country. This was given a prominent place in the last King's Speech, and it is an undoubted fact that it is to the Conservative party the people of this country and indeed of the Empire as a whole look for a more rapid development of Imperial policy. I do not wish to infer that the other two parties are indifferent to this great cause, but, having regard to certain Divisions which took place in this House during the last Parliament, I think perhaps it is only natural that the Dominions, at any rate, should consider that the Conservative party is the party to which they must look for material development upon a wider basis. Not only that, but the younger Conservative element in the country which, to my mind, by reason of its great enthusiasm and great sincerity is no mean factor in present day political thought, is very desirous that this subject should be pursued more vigorously than has been the case hitherto.
When one considers the importance that has been laid upon this subject, it is most deplorable that the numbers of migrants who have left this country since the War are as low as they are. No only that, but the amount of money that is being spent on the encouragement of emigration and in facilitating emigration is far too low. In 1913, the number of emigrants who left this country to settle in various parts of the Dominions was 285,000. Last year, the number was less than half, being only 132,000. Strangely enough, the greatest decline is shown in the Continent of British North America. In 1913, 190,000 migrants left this country and went there, and in 1924 there were only 63,000, or, roughly, one-third of the pre-War number. I see from the Estimates which have been brought forward this year that there is a decrease of no less than £345,000 on last year's Estimates, and last year's Estimates were low enough in all conscience. As a matter of fact, only £500,000 has been spent in the last three years to carry out the provisions of the Empire Settlement Act of 1922 Only £500,000 has been spent out of a total of nearly £2,500,000 voted. I am not suggesting that it is entirely the fault of the Government that these figures are as bad as they are; I am not suggesting that it is entirely the fault
of the Dominions, but the fact remains that they are extraordinarily low, and something must be done to get these figures higher, and to encourage general migration from this country to the Dominions. Our need in this country to-day may be briefly summarised as a need for a greater outlet for our surplus population and an outlet for our manufactured goods. The demand in our Dominions may be summarised in three words. They want men, money, and markets. In this country, you have a greater percentage of population to the square mile than in almost any other country in the world.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Any country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Sir V. WARRENDER: Well, almost any country in the world. In the Dominions you have large tracts of land wholly uncultivated which is capable of good cultivation and of yielding a profitable return. In other words, if we can marry these two conditions, we shall then have a sound basis on which to develop an efficient emigration scheme. Here we have somewhere about 1,250,000 unemployed men. Worse than that, we have over 2,000,000 of our people living in dwellings—if such hovels can be classed as dwellings—and under conditions of which every single Member in this House must be thoroughly ashamed, and which we all want to see remedied at the earliest possible moment. One might almost say that Great Britain is the centre of unemployed souls, and that the Dominions are centres of unemployed land. It is upon that basis we must look for our scheme for any general form of emigration. If we could enable, say, at least 200,000 of those of our people who to-day are living under such distressed conditions and to-day exist on a bare subsistence allowance, who are daily becoming more and more demoralised by the conditions under which they live, losing more and more of their self-respect through no fault of their own, to leave this country and to go and settle overseas in our Dominions, where, instead of being unproductive unemployed, they could become productive colonists, we should at least be doing something to improve the social conditions of this country. So far as I can see, if we continue along the
lines which we are now following, nothing substantial in this direction can possibly be done. We have got to review the whole question. It has got to be built upon a different foundation altogether, and it has got to be approached from an entirely different point of view.
The figures which I gave the House a minute or two ago are sufficient proof of the fact that emigration at the moment is anything but a success, and we have to try and find the reason for its failure. I think one of the reasons for the failure up to date of our emigration scheme is that the man who is on his beam end—the man who is down and out—has not the facility to emigrate. Under nearly all the schemes that are in existence to-day, a man can only emigrate if he can provide a certain sum of money for himself over and above the assistance which is provided by the Government. What on earth is the use of saying to an unemployed man in this country who wants to emigrate and who, we will presume, is acceptable to the Dominion authorities: "Very well, we will assist you to go overseas, but you must provide for yourself somewhere about 40 or 50 before you can go." The thing is an absurdity. The man cannot do it, and it is very little wonder that under such conditions emigration is as unpopular in the country to-day as, unfortunately, it is.
If by some means or other we could take the financial side of this problem more into our own hands than we do at the moment and more out of the hands of the Dominion authorities, I believe we could get over that difficulty. If the Dominions would supply us, or, if they will not supply us, then sell us, large tracts of partially—I say partially—reclaimed land, and leave us to do the financial business, not only would we be able to settle more men of the kind we desire to settle by this scheme, but there would be a less rigid control from the Dominions themselves. They would raise less objection to the class of men going overseas. I believe we can get this land if we do it upon that basis. We could then send our people overseas, and let them understand that, even when they got there, they would still be under the care of their home Government, and that they would not be immediately transferred to the
care of different authorities altogether. A man is naturally suspicious and distrustful of changing, mot only his venue and mode of life, but also the form of Government under which he has been accustomed to live.
I have only sketched, very briefly, the ideas which have been running through my own mind, and they may be entirely wrong and inadequate. I do not propose to elaborate them too much this afternoon, because I do not wish to take up too much time, but something on these lines must be done. It is no use going on in the way that we have done hitherto. If we look at it for a moment from this point of view, we see that last year we spent nearly £50,000,000 upon unemployment insurance. The total cost was, roughly, £50,000,000 last year. I am perfectly aware of the fact that it does not all come out of the pockets of the taxpayer; two-thirds of it is contributed by the employers and the employed, but the fact remains that the whole £50,000,000 is a burden upon the industries of this country, and therefore is a clog on the wheels of social progress.
Not only that, but over and above all this, enormous sums of money have been spent in purely unproductive relief works. I know the work has to be done and it is better than nothing, but it cannot be called productive work. I think it is no exaggeration to say that the unemployed to-day are costing £100,000,000 a year, two-thirds of which comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. If we are to place any reliance at all on the figures given by the Minister of Labour under the late Government we must not expect any great reduction in the number of the unemployed for several years to come, and he anticipated that there would be 300,000 unemployed for the next few years. Upon that basis we are going to continue paying £100,000,000 per annum for the unemployed, or roughly £100 per head for every unemployed man. Would it not be more economical in the long run to spend £400 or £500 per head on the unemployed men in getting them out of the country and settling them overseas? Would that not be a more economical means of providing these men with a healthier existence and prospects than they have got to-day, instead of leaving them in the
condition in which they find themselves in this country, each costing £100 a year?
I know there is another difficulty, to which I will allude. The class of unemployed men is unfortunately not particularly acceptable to the Dominions, who do not seem to quite realise the quality and character of the average workman, and they are naturally keen to get the best men they can. I know that the Dominions want the trained agriculturist and the man with a little money of his own. Really they want the best of our manhood, but my point is that the best of our manhood is 90 per cent., and the proportion of wasters is very small, or, at least, that is my experience. I think the Government would be rendering a very useful service if they impressed upon the Dominion Governments that the average Englishman has a great genius for adaptability, and has got an even greater genius for making good and pulling through. So long as the Dominions continue to be so strict in their demand for qualifications of suitable settlers I am afraid there is little chance of any substantial progress in emigration.
Perhaps I have suggested rather a bold and broad scheme and one that means more expense to the nation, but any scheme to be of any use has got to be a big and a broad one, and it is only natural that it will cost a good deal of money at the beginning. I would like to point out, however, that every citizen enabled to emigrate at all in time becomes a market for British goods, and his children increase that market. Here I would like to mention that instead of sending out young men to settle in the colonies, I should have thought that the ideal type of emigrant was the married man between 40 and 50, who has a family, as many boys as possible, a man of good reputation and good character who knows how to bring up the boys. That is the type of man who is likely to be turned into a far more useful settler than the younger and less responsible young men which the Dominions seem to demand.
Such a type of married man has got an anchorage, and his wife looks after that. He is less restless and requires less of the gaiety and the hum and hustle of town life, which, unfortunately, is so much demanded by the country young man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I
seem to carry the House with me in that argument. Having once acquired the land, it would then be necessary for the Government to set up offices in various districts of the country where people desirous of learning the conditions in our Dominions could go for advice, and where they could learn exactly what is going to happen to them when they get out there. Unfortunately, the ignorance of the British people in regard to our Dominions is prodigious, and many of them think that Australia is a country which you can only reach if you bore a hole through the floor of your cottage, and that it is a country not much bigger than England, or, at any rate, only a little bigger than France. They have no conception of the enormous tracts of land ruled over by the English-speaking people. They have no idea of the distance and the enormous limits which our great Empire possesses.
Not only do I think that would be a good means of making emigration a little more popular than it is now, but I think it would help to dispel the sort of suspicion aroused somehow in the minds of the people of this country about leaving their own homes and settling overseas. I think very largely this is due to the fact that men go out and settle and make a success of it, and when they come back, out of sheer bravado they tell us of the great hardships they have had to go through, and they make out what fine fellows they are. We have all done that in our time. It is no use hanging up in railway stations glowing pictures of Colonial life and bright blue skies and waving corn, because the settler is only disappointed if he does not find the actual conditions tally with the conditions drawn by those beautiful posters, and that is the worst possible effect you can produce upon any settler. He should not look back upon what he saw before he met this country, and be able to compare the two in any unfavourable manner at all.
There is one better way by which, I think, the Government could attain the object which I am trying to put before the House. There is in this country to-day a party of Australian schoolboys numbering about 120, of the public school type. I know that those boys are sent over here under the auspices of the Young
Australian League, and their personal expenses are paid for by their parents. They are taken out and looked after by unpaid officers of the League, and they are given cheap transport facilities, and everything possible is done to reduce the cost of their tour. I suggest that that is an idea: which the Government might very well copy. Of course, in this country it should not be limited to public school boys, and it would be far better to have the council school boys, though I would not exclude public school boys.
I should have thought that something could be done to organise similar tours to the one I have mentioned which would enable a small body of the boys to go out and see the Dominions for themselves. After all, it is when we have seen things that we appreciate them. The boys should be sent out on trips varying in range according to the distance they have to travel in conjunction with training ships on which they could travel as passengers, and then they would be able to see for themselves exactly what the Dominions are tike. What is more important still is that the Dominions would be able to see what the British boys are like, and the two together would prove a very valuable advertisement, although I do not like the word, of the possibilities of emigration. That is a suggestion which I throw out for the consideration of the Government. I do not think it would be a very expensive thing to do, and in any case it is one which, if desirable, would attract very considerable voluntary contributions from the public.
Let me, in conclusion, give the House a suitable analogy. If we compare our conditions at home to-day with the condition of a sick man, and if we compare the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench to a body of eminent physicians, all specialists in their own branch, I think it would be true to say—I am not speaking of the present Government only—that hitherto these eminent doctors have been prescribing for the patient nothing but sedative drugs, which are very good in their way, but they are not a permanent cure. What I want them to do is to try a new line, being careful to avoid the quack remedies of the learned physicians who sit opposite, and give to this unfortunate patient a course of stimulating and invigorating tonics, and then I am sure the patient will be
restored to a measure of health by such means, and will not suffer any longer from the disastrous results which invariably follow the direct application of dangerous and lowering narcotics.

Lieut.-Colonel ANGUS McDONNELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is with considerable diffidence that I rise to second the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed, and I would crave the indulgence of the House for a maiden speech, as although I have had twenty years practical experience in our Overseas Empire in every kind of capacity as man and master, I have had little experience in public speaking. Still, I am emboldened to face the ordeal of a maiden speech on the subject of Empire Development, as my experience, first as a wage-earner and later as a wage-payer on railway construction in our Overseas Empire, has convinced me that the solution of our troubles in this country is bound up with the development of our Overseas Empire. During the present Session I have heard many suggestions with regard to finding a solution of the various problems of this country, but I do not think I have heard a single suggestion that took in the idea of mobilising the whole Empire in order to find a solution of our problems at home. Most of the suggestions that I have heard sounded to me more like a palliative than a cure. I fully believe that if we in this country have only one-half the courage and vision in developing our Empire overseas that our forefathers showed in providing that Empire as a heritage for us, we shall cure, at any rate, some of the troubles from which this country is suffering at the present moment. I do not wish to mention any controversial subject, because any programme for the development of the Empire must have the unqualified support of all political parties in all parts of the Empire. Unless a programme free from party prejudice is adopted, it is bound to be without continuity, and upon continuity alone the success of any programme must entirely depend.
In order to appreciate properly the difficulties that confront us, it is necessary to realise that the Empire geographically and climatically—I leave out India, because it is really neither a Colony nor a Dominion—is divided into
three sections, namely, this country, the self-governing Dominions, and the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. The problems facing these three sections of the Empire are all entirely different, but if each section has a reasonable and tolerant appreciation of the difficulties facing the other two, if they will only work together in a reasonable spirit of reciprocal co-operation, I am sure they can do a great deal to solve the problems of all three. The main difficulty, of course, that faces this country is, as my hon. Friend has said, that of the surplus population, largely represented by unemployed craftsmen in our skilled trades, coal miners, and others. There is also the necessity of finding fresh markets for our produce. The great difficulty of the Dominions is shortage of population, and particularly of people with agricultural knowledge capable of developing raw land. I would point out to the Committee that the self-governing Dominions comprise the whole of that portion of our Empire which is really fit for settlement, in the true sense of the term, by people from this country. The two chief problems facing the Crown Colonies are the necessity for providing increased and cheapened transportation, and the improvement of sanitation in the broadest sense of the word, as affecting man, beast and plant. I would point out, also, that our Crown Colonies and Protectorates are mostly tropical or sub-tropical, and, therefore, they are not fit, in the true sense of the word, for settlement by people from this country. Moreover, they have in most cases large native populations, and in any case they do not suffer from any particular shortage or surplus of labour.
Any movement to bring these three sections of the Empire closer together must of necessity be initiated by this country, as the senior partner in the firm. But there is a difficulty in the way, and it is, to my mind, chiefly this, that the organisation which we set up in the Colonial Office, some 25 years ago, for dealing with the affairs of the Empire, has become obsolete because the Empire has outgrown it. Consequently, I think that the Colonial Office is failing, through no fault of its personnel, in one of its very important functions, namely, the co-ordination of the Empire. I wish to emphasise at once that none of my remarks are made in any spirit of criti-
cism of any of the personnel of any Government Department, because I am convinced that, with the machinery at hand, they have done a great deal more than could possibly have been expected. But if we are going to develop our Empire to the full, the first thing is to develop our organisation for dealing with it, and to bring that organisation up to date. The organisation at the Colonial Office to-day is practically the same as it was 25 years ago, with the exception of a considerable increase in personnel. That increase in personnel, however, is largely among the subordinate staff. It is true that three new Departments have been created, for dealing respectively with the Middle East, the Irish Free State, and Overseas Settlement. Nevertheless, the actual organisation is practically the same as it was 25 years ago.
If one turns to Class II of the Estimates—Salaries and Expenses of the Colonial Office—I think it will be found that this Service is probably one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest, of any of the great Departments of State in this country, while the responsibilities of the Department are as great as, if not greater than, those of many of the others. Class V of these Estimates really represents our national contribution towards the expenses of our overseas Empire, and it will be found, in the Estimates for the current year, that the expenditure under this heading—excluding Overseas Settlement and the Middle Fast, which cannot be compared with previous years—is only £1,216,000. If we compare this with the same Estimate under the same heading twenty years ago—namely, for the year 1905–6, we have to deduct £586,000, which represents loans to Tanganyika, Nyasaland, and Northern Rhodesia, and certain expenses in connection with the Irish Free State, leaving our net contribution towards the expenses of our Overseas Empire at only £630,000. If one turns to page 52 of the Estimates, one finds that there are estimated credits amounting to some £261,000, and, if we take that from the £630,000, we find that our total net contribution to the expenditure of our overseas Empire for this year amounts in all only to £370,000.
Under the same heading in the Estimates for 1905–06, the net expenditure was estimated at some £1,260,000. The
point I wish to make is that, when our Export trade to our Colonial Overseas Empire twenty years ago was worth only some £71,000,000, we were prepared to contribute towards the expenses of our Overseas Empire, under Class (5), some £1,250,000; but that at present, when our Exports to our Colonial Overseas Empire total about £200,000,000 our contribution under Class (5) in the Estimates is only £630,000; or, if the credits be deducted, some £370,000.
I submit that in our overseas Empire we have, not only the greatest heritage in the world, but the greatest trust. With the permission of the House, I should like just to outline the organisation that we have for dealing with it, and to make three suggestions to the Government—firstly, with regard to getting a greater spirit of reciprocal cooperation between the three sections of the Empire; secondly, with regard to stimulating emigration to our overseas Dominions; and, thirdly, with regard to developing our Crown Colonies and Protectorates. In the first place, I would point out that the Colonial Office, as at present organised, is divided into two groups of Departments, the one dealing exclusively with the affairs of the self-governing Dominions, and the other being directly responsible for the administration of government in our Crown Colonies. There is, however, absolutely no connection between these two groups of Departments except in the person of the Secretary of State, the Permanent Under-Secretary, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and it is not surprising to find that, just as there is little or no connection between these two groups in the Colonial Office, so there is practically no connection between the Dominions and the Crown Colonies. Of course there are exceptions, like the Agreement between Canada and the West Indies, or the Pacific Islands, which have been handed over to the Commonwealth of Australia for administration but, broadly speaking and in the main, there is little or no connection between the two.
I cannot emphasize too strongly that in the main, as far as the Dominions are concerned, the Crown Colonies might belong to a foreign Power, and that in the Crown Colonies the peoples of the Dominions are regarded, both officially and unofficially as "Colonials." That, I
submit, is a state of affairs which should not be allowed to exist. It is the organisation—certainly not the personnel—of the Colonial Office that is really responsible for it. I submit, further, that, unless we can bring these two great sections of our overseas Empire closer together, we shall never be able to get Britishers who have been born overseas to realise the value, and also the responsibility, of their Imperial heritage. I believe the problem of holding the Empire together in future years is not going to be an easy one. The only way in which it can be done is by making every Britisher, in whatever part of the British Empire he may have been born, realise both the responsibility and the value of that heritage which has been handed down to us by our forefathers.
I suggest, therefore, for the consideration of the Government, that the first step towards promoting a better understanding between all three sections of the Empire would be for the Colonial Office. to follow the example of the Foreign Office in relation to the terms of engagement of personnel for the Service, so that in future all new appointments to the Colonial Service should be made for service either at home or abroad, and that, when the present officials of the Colonial Office have completed their service—and I fully realise that their terms of engagement must, above all things, be respected—no new appointments should be made to senior positions in the Colonial Office, unless the officials to be appointed have had actual experience in Crown Colonies, whether such appointments be in the Crown Colonies Department or in the self-governing Dominions Department of the Colonial Office. All such officials should have had five years' service in the Crown Colonies, and have had experience in the self-governing Dominions. I prefer, if it could be arranged, that they should be seconded to the Civil Service of one of the self-governing Dominions for a period of two years. I quite agree that it is most important that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should be given every opportunity of visiting the Colonies whenever that be possible, so that they can get first-hand knowledge of the problems with which they have to deal. But, after all, these gentlemen are only transitory, migratory beings. The Secretary of State
for the Colonies of yesterday is either the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the head of a great trade union to-day and, if it he important—and I agree that it is most important—that these gentlemen should have an opportunity of visiting our overseas countries, and getting first-hand information, surely it is far more important that equal opportunities should be given to the permanent officials of the Colonial Office, whom nothing but death or time can remove. If such a procedure were adopted, it would also go a very long way to do away with the feeling which exists in the minds of those in the Colonial Service overseas in the Crown Colonies that the general staff officers, as the senior officials in the Colonial Office may be called, have no actual knowledge of the conditions under which the front-line troops in the Colonies themselves have to carry out their duties, often on the very outskirts of civilisation. From my own short experience in the tropics. I can fully realise the meaning of the clause in the old Scottish litany
From ghosties and ghoulies and long-leggety beasties, and all things that go 'bang' in the night, Good Lord, deliver us.
That clause has a very real meaning to the solitary white man on the outskirts of civilisation in Africa, although it may not have the slightest meaning to the man who has spent the whole of his life in Whitehall.
The next suggestion that I would make for the consideration of the Government, for the purpose of promoting better feeling throughout the Empire, is that real effect should be given to Section (2) of the third Resolution agreed to at the Imperial Economic Conference in 1923, relating to Imperial Preference and public contracts. That Resolution reads as follows
(1) That this Imperial Economic' Conference re-affirms the principle that in all Government contracts effective preference be given to goods made and materials produced within the Empire, except where undertakings entered into prior to this Conference preclude such a course or special circumstances render it undesirable or unnecessary.
(2) That so far as practicable efforts be made to ensure that the materials used in carrying out contracts be of Empire production.
(3) That State, provincial and local government authorities should be en-
couraged to take note of the foregoing Resolutions.
This Resolution could be put into effect without legislation, and would go a very long way to overcome the feeling which exists—I am not prepared to say whether it is justified or not, but it does exist—in at least one of the self-governing Dominions, that the Crown Colonies and Protectorates are 113t as the preserve of this country, and that the producers of goods in our own Dominions overseas are not only not getting equal opportunities for competing with the manufacturers in this country in regard to goods purchased on Government account, but that there is actual discrimination against them. I believe that this impression would be entirely wiped out if the practice of calling for tenders by private invitation were discontinued, and if, when goods were purchased on Government account, invitations for tenders were advertised publicly throughout the whole Empire. I submit that this procedure should be followed, in any case, in relation to goods purchased by the Crown Agents for the Crown Colonies with money derived from taxation in the Crown Colonies themselves. This would give our self-governing Dominions a very real preference as full partners in the commonwealth of British nations, and would go a long way to offset the fact that in our markets we can give them only a very small preference in return for the very considerable preference which they give us in their markets. I am told that the cash value of the preference which they gave us in the Dominion markets in 1924 amounted to £12,000,000. Unless we adopt some such procedure as this, we have little right to complain when the Dominions place orders in foreign countries for the goods that they want, though when this is done it is always the subject of adverse comment in the newspapers of this country.
To turn to my second point, with regard to assisting emigration to our self-governing Dominions, I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend has said, but only to endorse whole-heartedly every word of it. I speak as an emigrant. I believe it would be very much cheaper for this country to hear the whole financial responsibility of paying a man's passage to the Colonies, giving him subsistence, and helping him to purchase a farm on a
20 years' purchase basis, or something of that sort, than it is to give him unemployment benefit, which at the best only gives him the bare necessities of life, and does not give his children a chance in the world. I believe any money spent in assisting people from this country to our Dominions can be looked upon as an Imperial and a national investment, whereas any money spent in giving merely unemployment benefit must be looked upon in the nature of absolutely dead expenditure. I think the figures of trade and population in our overseas Dominions prove that. In 1904 the population of Canada, New Zealand and Australia, I believe, was 10,600,000, at which time we exported to those countries goods of British manufacture amounting only to ½35,000,000. With a population in the same countries of between 17,000,000 and 18,000,000, we exported in 1924 goods to the value of £111,000,000. The value of the Dominions is again borne out by the amount per head purchased in the Dominions of goods of British manufacture. Speaking from memory, I think it is £16 per head in New Zealand, £12 in Australia, £3 in Canada, and when you come to another of our best customers, a foreign country, the United estates, it is about 5s. per head, so the man who goes to our own countries overseas is worth far more to us than a man who goes to a foreign country. He is an investment.
Turning to our Crown Colonies and Protectorates, it is here more than anywhere else that I think the need for reorganisation of the Colonial Office is becoming most apparent, and it is in this connection I submit that our national contribution towards the expenses of our overseas Empire is neither commensurate with our responsibility nor sufficient to safeguard our commercial interests in those countries. I do not believe it is generally realised in this country that the Secretary of State is responsible not only for the proper administration of government in the ordinary political sense, but also for the running of all the public utilities and public services in most of our Crown Colonies which services ordinarily speaking, in a white man's country do not come under Government control. With the exception of British Honduras, Bermuda, the Bahamas and British Guiana, in most of the local legislatures there is an official majority, the unofficial members
of which are appointed as a rule not elected. In any case the Crown has reserved the right to legislate in those Colonies by Orders in Council. So the responsibility of the Secretary of State is absolutely direct for all forms of administration.
Another thing, I do not believe the average man realises is that these Crown Colonies, which do not include India, Burma, Egypt or the Sudan, have an area of 2,600,000 square miles, a population of 48,000,000, and purchased goods of British manufacture last year amounting to £50,000,000. It is especially with regard to research work, improving the health of man, beast and plant—because they all count in those countries—that I claim that we are not living up to our national responsibilities, It is true that, as guardians of those Colonies and of the native races, we authorise them, at their own expense, to do research work of all kinds. But our national contributions for the purpose of collating the results of their efforts, so that all the Colonies can profit by the mistakes and successes of their sister Colonies, is absolutely ridiculous. In the present Estimate the whole sum amounts to 119,500, only £1,500 more than was voted 20 years ago for the same purpose, when the importance of this work was not so generally realised, especially with regard to tropical diseases. This £19,500 is subdivided as follows: £300 for the University of Hong Kong, £12,500 for the Imperial Institute and Mineral -Resources Bureau, which is I believe in England. £1,000 for the Tropical Diseases Bureau, £1,000 for the Bureau of Entomology, £2,000 for scientific research in connection with the development of the economic resources of our Colonies and Protectorates, £2,000 for the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture in the West Indies, and £1,000 for the National Council for Combating Venereal Diseases, in all, only £7,000 as our national contribution in connection with medical, veterinary and agricultural research. This is actually £12,500 less than was voted 20 years ago to aid agricultural research work in the West Indies alone.
During the last 20 years, where real progress has been made in tropical countries, the chief factor has been that the pioneer has been able to take advantage of what the scientists have
found out by research work for him. I believe not only the future development of our trade in the Crown Colonies, but the maintenance of existing trade depends upon us giving adequate, support to research of this kind. My complaint is that, though successive Governments have apparently realised the necessity of allowing the Crown Colony Governments at their own expense to run public utilities and public services, and to do a, certain amount of research work, they have entirely failed to provide any organisation to act as technical advisers in these matters to the Secretary of State or the officials responsible for the administration of the Colonies to the Secretary of State. Just as there is no co-ordination between the two groups of Departments in the Colonial Office—dealing with the affairs of the Dominions on the one side and the administration of the Crown Colonies on the other—so there is no co-ordination between the various Departments directly responsible for the administration of groups of Crown Colonies or the individual Colonies.
The Colonial Office, as at present organised, is endeavouring to do the biggest wholesale technical business the world has ever seen through a number of non-technical, watertight retail compartments. The senior official responsible to the Secretary of State for one or a group of Crown Colonies has to make recommendations with regard to proposals emanating from the Colonies dealing with political administration, sanitation, education, research work and all the public services and utilities. It is simply beyond the power of any one man to do the work properly. Furthermore, I do not think it is fair to put that burden on any one man's shoulders. To ask a man to do all this is to put him in the position of the giraffe in the circus, which the farmer looked at for 10 minutes and then said, "There is no such animal." In a circular issued in February, 1904, by Mr. Alfred Lyttleton, defining the duties of Crown Agents, it is laid down that when important harbour works, railway works, or water or drainage schemes are projected, the Crown Agents are authorised, as the agents of the Colonies, and at the Colonies' expense, to engage consulting engineers and to place contracts for the purpose of carrying out those works. In other words, they are authorised to
engage specialists for the construction of certain works of a civil engineering character. Still there is no provision in the Colonial Office itself for any organisation from which the Colonial Office officials, responsible for the whole administration of a Crown Colony or a group of Colonies, can turn to get advice, as from a general practitioner as opposed to the highly expensive consulting specialist, upon matters of routine dealing with the administration of these many Government run public utilities and services.
The functions of the Crown Agents are quite definite. They are the financial and purchasing agents of the Colonies in this country, paid by the Crown Colonies, and as such cannot give advice to the Colonial Office on questions of policy referred to the Secretary of State by their masters who are paying them. If the Colonial Office is going to take advice from the Crown Agent on technical policies, it is the equivalent to the Secretary of State giving authority to the tail to wag the dog. Therefore I submit it is necessary to provide in the Colonial Office departments to correspond with the various technical departments in the Crown Colonies to deal with everyday questions regarding the administration of medical and sanitary work, transportation, and public utilities and services generally. The officials in charge of these departments should be responsible for the inspection of the services they represent in the Colonies, for the selection and interchange of personnel, and act as advisers to the senior officials and Secretary of State. Half their time should be spent in visiting the Colonies and making themselves conversant with the problems to be met on the spot. They should also be given opportunities of visiting the Dominions and foreign countries, because many problems which have to be met in the Colonies have been solved elsewhere.
The growth of our export trade to the Crown Colonies would more than justify the expense. It has grown in 20 years from £17,000,000 to £56,000,000. There is plenty of work for such departments in the Colonial Office manned by whole-time experts, and I am firmly convinced that the future development of these Colonies depends on the cheapening of transportation and the
fighting of tropical diseases, inimical to life of all kinds, and I believe the desired result can best be reached by installing such technical departments as I suggest in the Colonial Office for the purpose of co-ordination and advising in connection with administration. With regard to medical research, I do not believe the average man realises that the native inhabitants of our tropical Crown Colonies suffer to a very great extent from the very same diseases that make those Colonies really unsuitable for settlement by the people of this country. If we can improve the health of the people in those countries it is going to increase the amount of exportable goods they produce, which is in direct relation to the amount of imports they buy from this country. Therefore, I submit to the Government that they should appoint two Select Committees, one to see if further powers cannot be given to the Overseas Settlement Board with regard to the spending of further funds or advancing the whole of the cost of emigration, especially in relation to the cost of unemployment, and the other to go into the question of the reorganisation of the Colonial Office with regard to establishing technical departments or subsidising existing institutions for research with a view to rendering more efficient the technical services and improving the conditions of health obtaining in our tropical possessions upon which the prosperity and the development of those possessions absolutely depends.

5.0. P.M.

Mr. SIDNEY WEBB: This Amendment has been drawn in very wide terms and covers a great deal of ground, but the hon. Member who moved it confined himself almost entirely to an attempt to encourage emigration to distant parts of the Empire, and in a speech of charm and distinction he certainly put before the House very significant facts and very suggestive figures with regard to emigration. The hon. Member who followed him dealt rather with the other side of the question covered in the very wide Amendment, but, I think, concurred in the suggestion. The hon. Member drew the attention of the House in very considerable detail to the imperfections of the Colonial Office. I am not sure whether the Overseas Dominions would or would not agree to that criticism of the Colonial Office. I think
they would be quite disposed to agree—at least, they were when I had anything to do with them—to the criticism, though not exactly from the point of view of the hon. Member, because I do not think the suggestion that has been made would be likely to produce harmony amongst all parts of the Empire, because, after all, even in the Crown Colonies, there is a public opinion, and a sense that they are paying by their own taxation for whatever work is carried on. My experience, which was a long time ago, is that they are more apt to be critical of the Colonial Office for endeavouring to instruct them and keep them right. I was glad the hon. Member gave his opinion that the Colonial Office was the cheapest of all our Government Departments and at the same time the one charged with the greatest responsibilities.
There were two suggestions with which the hon. Member concluded which seemed to me of the greatest possible value, and I venture to hope the Government will give them very serious consideration. It was suggested that two committees should be appointed, one to consider why we are not getting on better with regard to migration within the Empire, and to see whether something more cannot be done; and the other to see whether something cannot be done to increase the amount of scientific research that is being conducted, and which might be conducted to a very much greater extent if the Colonial Office could only get the necessary support from the Treasury. I venture to suggest that those two committees are a very useful suggestion, and I hope they may be favourably considered. Of course, in dealing with either of these committees, it is necessary to remember that we must not set one part of the Empire against another. Both those Committees would have to include within their scope the whole of the British Commonwealth of Nations, not even excluding India, and the committee on technical information and scientific research would necessarily have to include in its purview the whole range of the subject, and be representative, not of one part of the Empire only, but of all parts.
Let me go back to something I wanted to bring before the House about emigration. The hon. and gallant Member for Dartford (Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell) said something to which I want to emphasise. He said this must be a matter of
agreement among all political parties. I feel that we ought to pay great regard to that in connection with emigration. No greater disservice could be done than to put forward any emigration policy as a party matter. The hon. Member for Grantham (Sir V. Warrender) carefully avoided that. He did not make any claim on behalf of the party to which he belongs, and rightly, if I may venture to say so, because if we want this thing to go, we must have the whole country behind us. It is sometimes said that we on this side of the House are not very keen on emigration. I think it is worth while considering exactly what we mean. Speaking for myself, I hope to see the time come when it will be as easy, and as much a matter of course, for a man or woman, or a family, to move from Middlesex to Australia, Canada or South Africa as from here to Yorkshire or from here to Cornwall. We must not overlook the fact that it is not so easy at present, for all sorts of reasons; but that ought to be our ideal, and I do not want it to be assumed that we have any objection to people moving to better themselves, not merely materially, but to get into an environment which is more suitable, to give them wider opportunity, whether in one part of the British Empire or another. That is what we have got to aim at.
What we feel on this side of the House is a very strong objection to anyone in any sense being forced to emigrate. No one suggests at the present time that there should be any legal compulsion, but there is sometimes an economic compulsion to emigrate, which is very objectionable. You cannot give an actual definition of it. You cannot take any steps to prevent it, perhaps, but the emigrant who feels that he is forced out by economic compulsion, does not go in any sense willingly, does not carry away a very good impression of the country from which he is extruded, and does not become a contented settler in the country to which he goes. I do not want to go back to the past, but you cannot believe that what has happened in the Highlands of Scotland in past generations, whereby so many people have gone to North America, is a good process. I am not blaming anyone, but tens of thousands of families felt they had no chance of living in the Highlands, and that they were driven out against their will. That
is not the kind of thing we want to see repeated in this century.
If you can have your emigration voluntary, in the right sense of the word, then I am in favour of the largest possible amount of freedom of movement in the country, and if anyone wants to go—and I can believe it is very much better for various classes of people that they should get a chance in a new country with less impediments—then the Government ought to give them every possible assistance to enable them to go. But the method of assistance involves consideration. I am afraid the bright idea of the hon. Member that we should bring the landless man to the manless land, when you come to look into it, tends to vanish. The hon. and gallant Member for Dartford quite rightly said that what was wanted was people of agricultural knowledge. How many among the 1,200,000 of our unemployed have got that agricultural knowledge, or would make good in Australia or Canada? As a matter of fact, to begin with, a very large proportion of these men are in the engineering and shipbuilding trades. They are skilled artificers. The same is the case in the cotton mills. You are not going to suggest to these skilled artificers that they would be wise to go to Australia or Canada, even if you enabled them to do so. Every winter in Toronto and Montreal the pressure of the unemployed is comparable in acuteness to that in this country, and the trouble is—the Dominions know it too well—that, save in very exceptional cases, you cannot hope to transfer the skilled artificer and the urban person to these new countries, settle them on the land and be at all sure that they will make good upon that land.
There are exceptional cases, and I do not want to stand in the way of those exceptional cases; but the programme mapped out by the hon. Member for Dartford on this subject would involve heavy expenditure. It would involve acquiring the land and clearing the land, and it would involve maintenance not only over the first harvest, but, I am afraid, generally speaking, longer than that. It would involve working capital to a considerable amount, and we know, from experience in this matter, that it costs somewhere in the region of £1,000 to set up a smallholder with his family. If you are going to spend
anything in the nature of £1,000 to transfer one family and set up that family in Australia, the question immediately arises, why should you exile that family from this country? Why not set them up in this country, if you are ready to put them on the land? I am not at all sure that the proportion of smallholders who have made good in this country is not as large as the proportion of smallholders who have settled in Queensland, or one of those places, and made good there. If you are prepared to spend anything like £1,000 a family to settle them on the land, why not settle them in this country, at any rate, to a much greater extent than you have done hitherto?
Even if we were prepared, is the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to agree to the proposal? Then, do we want our agricultural labourers to go abroad, because, quite clearly, they would have the very best right to be applicants. And if we do not want the agriculturists to go abroad, is it suggested that it would be wise to spend all that money in setting up the engineer, the shipwright, or the cotton spinner on an Australian farm or a Canadian small holding? I am afraid we should be exposing them to very considerable hardship and disappointment in the majority of cases. We should also be letting the British Government in for a very considerable loss, and you would find the Dominion Governments objecting, because, even if you propose to pay the whole expense, those Dominion Governments would necessarily want to be assured that we were not sending people who would be likely to become a charge on their resources in the near future.
For that reason, I want to suggest that, whatever we can do in the way of encouraging people to settle on the land in this country or in Australia, the money cannot be taken out of the Unemployment Benefit Fund. It is a little delusive to say we are spending a million pounds a week on what hon. Members shortly call "the dole," and then suggest how very much better that could be spent in this other way. I have no doubt a good deal of it could be better spent in this way and in other ways, but you cannot withdraw any part of that without leaving the people who would otherwise receive it outside. Therefore, that financial resource fades away. Emigration on anything like a large scale, and in
anything like a proper proportion, means an expensive operation, and the cost must be a new charge on the Exchequer.

Sir V. WARRENDER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understood my argument; perhaps I did not make it clear. What I intended to put to the House was this. By sending overseas a large number of the surplus population you will be able to economise in another direction. I never suggested spending the Unemployment Fund in placing settlers overseas. What I suggested was that if you could settle in the Dominions 200,000 souls from among the unemployed of this country, you would be able to save at the rate of £100 per annum that their maintenance to-day is costing.

Mr. WEBB: I was coming to that point. I am prepared to admit that if you do make large expenditure, capital expenditure, you may expect that there would be a diminution in the future charge on your unemployment fund, but it would be necessary to explain to the Treasury that, in the meantime, the amount spent on emigration would be an additional expense It would, no doubt, he wise to incur the expenditure, but I am afraid that it does constitute a difficulty that you impose a very considerable increased expenditure. I am in favour of that increased expenditure. It would pay this country thoroughly, quite apart from any of the points in dispute, to give an opportunity to individuals or families who want. to go out, and who are Prevented because they cannot see their way on account of the cost. It would pay the country to send them out; but I should probably select them in a different order from the selection that would be favoured by the two hon. Members who have spoken. I am not sure that I should not send out the women first. If we are to talk about surplus population—it is not a phrase that I like to use—we can more accurately say that there is a surplus of women in the country, and, certainly, there is more need for women in domestic service in Australia and Canada. Therefore, I would, first, have a scheme for women to go.
Secondly, I am inclined to think that 40 or 50 sounds a great age. I would send the newly married man, with the children still in the making so that they could actually grow up in their childhood in the new country. Then I would put in a word
for the young men: the young men with their adventurous spirit. I would prefer that they should be adventurous in a new land than be adventurous in this country. However the emigrants may be selected, so long as you give an opportunity to people who, bona fide, want to go, the Government would be very wise to extend much more generosity in the way of grants to enable these people to go. But it will be necessary to look after them when they have gone. The journey of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Wignall) to the Overseas settlements in Australia, and of Miss Bondfield to Canada, have shown that whilst, on the whole, the emigration has been well-conducted and is producing satisfactory results, there are evils and great possibilities of evil which require to be looked into. Therefore, it will not be enough for the Treasury to pay the initial cost. There must be some way of securing supervision over the settlers, without too much leading strings. Consequently a committee could do very useful work in that direction.
I should like to say something as to what has very often been called the backwardness of Australia or the failure of Australia to live up to the responsibilities imposed upon it by those millions upon millions of acres, the figures of which we cannot keep in our heads and can seldom appreciate because of the smallness of our maps. It is often said that, on the whole, it is not creditable to Australia that they have only something like 7,000,000 people there, after all these generations. I want the House to remember that the populations of Australia and the United States of America have increased and are increasing at much the same rate in geometrical proportions. No one can complain of the United States not having a big population. The population now is something like 125,000,000. On looking up the figures to-day, I found that 100 years ago the population of the United States was about 8,000,000. That is to say, the population of the United States 100 years ago was only what the population of what Australia is now.
The whole of the advance in the population of the United States from 8,000,000 to 125,000,000 has taken place in 100 years. That moans that the population has doubled itself four times. The population of Australia is doubling itself at
about the same rate as has the population of the United States. Australia has been settled for only 100 years, and it has advanced during that time in population at about as big a rate as did the United States at the corresponding stage in its growth. The United States was doubling its population about every 25 years, 200 years ago. It went up from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000, then from 2,000,000 to 4,000,000, and from 4,000,000 to 8,000,000. That is what Australia has been doing at a corresponding stage in its growth.
If you are going to try to prophecy from figures, which is always very rash, you might say that in the next 100 years Australia may have as big a population as the United States has now. That is to say, that the past history of Australia would warrant, an extension of the curve. Consequently, I do not think we have any reason to reproach Australia with slackness in regard to the increase in population. As a matter of fact, its population has increased at quite a satisfactory rate, and it will increase still more if we help Australia by sending more people out there. Just as it took the United States a century to get from 1,000,000 to 8,000,000, so it has taken Australia a century to get from 1,000,000 to 8,000,000, and the United States has taken another century to get from 8,000,000 to 125,000,000. I hope that Australia will go in the same direction.
There is another point with which this Amendment deals. It asks for the development of the Empire as well as emigration. In view of some recent criticism I should like to say that I do not know any part of the Empire in which so much development has take place, relatively, and at so progressive and so satisfactory a rate as in our West African Colonies. I knew something about them 40 years ago. The West African Colonies, the Gold Coast and Nigeria are exhibiting most remarkable development. In my time, the Gold Coast produced no cocoa whatsoever. Even 20 years ago the Gold Coast produced no cocoa, whereas at the present time it produces one-half or two-thirds of the whole cocoa of the world. It has done that in 20 years. My point is that that has grown up entirely by native production, production on a small scale. I do not believe you can hurry
the development of these places by large capital exploitation. When we look at our own industrial system in this country, we realise that, undoubtedly, we increased our production greatly from 1750 to 1850, but at what a cost? At what a cost of ruin to the rural section of the community, and at the expense of millions of operatives?
I hope there will be no attempt at that sort of development in any of our Crown Colonies. I would rather see the Gold Coast and Nigeria go on as they are now doing, than that there should be any attempt to introduce the factory system. with all the horrors of an unregulated factory system, as there would be. I do not like the Hut tax, or any similar legislation which deliberately seeks to drive the native to sell his labour for wages. There ought not to be any compulsory labour, even as a quick cut to profit. I suggest that in our haste for the development of the Empire, while we must pursue a wise policy of emigration, and while we want voluntary and individual development of industry, we ought not to attempt to supersede what I might call the native system of industry by any introduction of the factory system or large capital expenditure for which the country may not be fit.
I would ask the Under-Secretary to see whether he cannot consider favourably the setting up of two committees, one to consider what step forward can be made in emigration, and the other to consider what step forward can be made in scientific research.

Captain HOLT: It is with some trepidation that I rise to address the House for the first time, especially on this very important matter. I would not have ventured to intervene but for the fact that. I am Dominion-born, and that I hope any observations I may make will help forward the objects set out in the Resolution. I do not think that anybody can have listened to the discussion that took place on unemployment last week without realising, if they had not realised it before, that this question of unemployment is the most serious question that faces the country at the present time. Anyone who listened to the discussion must have come to the conclusion that it is essential that we should have new markets if we are to resume our position in world trade, and get back to the times
of prosperity which we formerly enjoyed. Day by day the markets of the world are being more and more shut against us, and there remain the markets of our Dominions, and possibly the markets of South America, which can be developed to our advantage.
While I do not think that, in a general way, Government interference can do a great deal to help things along, yet I do think that within the Empire assistance from His Majesty's Government can do a good deal. I would ask the House to remember, that in these matters we must look at it from both points of view. There is, first of all, the viewpoint of ourselves, and secondly, the viewpoint of the Dominions. The right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) has made a good many remarks with which I entirely agree; but it is certain that the increase of emigration which both sides of the House wish to see is not something that can be undertaken lightly, and it is not something that can be easily attained. On the other hand, from my own personal experience, both at home and abroad, and from inquiries which I have made, I have come to the conclusion that there are, undoubtedly, a very large number of people in this country who will be glad to go out to our Dominions and set up there new homes for themselves. From the Dominions point of view, if we are to develop markets there, it is apparent that they must get very much larger populations. With the population they have, they provide very good markets for us. They take an enormous amount of our goods, quite out of all proportion to anything that foreign countries do. As the hon. and gallant Member for Dartford (Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell) said, the increase in their consumption has gone up very rapidly with the increase in their population.
The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pointed out that, on the whole, there is not a very great number of agricultural labourers or agriculturists in this country who can be spared, and I agree with him. But I cannot agree with him when he says that the other people in this country, artisans and so on, are no use to the Dominions. I think that it will be found that a great many people without agricultural experience have gone out to the Dominions and have, been very successful. On the other hand, I think
that it is very necessary that these people should be looked after when they have gone out. If the Government are going to take a very largely increased number of people for settlement in the Dominions it is essential that these people should be settled on their own land. It is essential that they should really advantage themselves by going out. It is essential that they should have a really good opportunity of making a success in their new country.
In the past on many occasions—personally I have known a good many cases—people have gone out in the rather haphazard way in which we have developed our Empire, and have been what I may call dumped on the land, unsuited and untrained. They have failed there, and have drifted into the towns or, in many instances, drifted home, and there is no worse advertisement for the Empire as a whole than for these people to come back feeling that they have been unjustly treated and that they have not had a fair chance, and saying that is no good for people to go to the Dominions, because they are worse off there than they are at home. For that reason, I would advocate, if the Committee is set up, that it should go very carefully into what is known as the group system of settlement. This group system has many obvious advantages. Under that system the people are taken out, they are either put to work with settlers who are already there, or else they are put in their own homes, which they will finally acquire, and while they are gaining experience and working up their own land they will be under the supervision of instructors and of the Government.
It is essential that they should have supervision until they become accustomed to the, strangeness of their surroundings and find out what the new customs are, and what is the best way to work their new land. People who go out from home and settle haphazard in a new country are oppressed in the first place with a very great loneliness and a very great feeling of homesickness. Under the group system they have at least the advantage of having around them people who come from their own home, or adjoining districts, people who have roughly the same customs, who speak their own language, and who are willing to help them on in every way. It has been my experience
that a great many emigrants fail in the Dominions absolutely through that feeling of loneliness, that feeling it may be of being a stranger in a strange land, and the feeling that they are not altogether wanted. I think that if this group system were carried out—I know that it has been carried out in a small way in various Dominions—on a large scale, it would be the finest and best way of settling emigrants.
I know that there would be the objection that this is all going to be very costly. I am afraid that it is. I know that it is extremely unpopular to advocate any further expenditure at the present time, but I would submit that on this occasion the expenditure is in the nature of a terminal charge. I submit that, by removing from the Unemployment Fund large numbers in this country, you create an asset for the Dominions, and you provide a potential buyer of goods which you produce in this country. I cannot think of any greater asset to the Empire as a whole than a contented, prosperous, happy settler. I submit that it would be well worth the while of the Government to make a very careful investigation into this matter. Our Empire has been developed and built up by people who took long views ahead. I think that we shall continue to build it up in the same degree if the Government in this case take a long view. There is room for a great expansion of population in all the Dominions. All the Dominions are very rich. They have all got large quantities of land, which is not settled, and all the Dominions want settlers on that land. It is vital for them to increase their population, and if we in this country do not take advantage of the heritage which we have to our hand there, in the end I am very much afraid that there will be an influx of foreigners into the Dominions which, to my mind, would have a very undesirable effect on the Empire as a whole.
I would ask the Government again to listen to the suggestions of setting up an inquiry. I realise that this is not a matter which can be done in a day. It is not a matter which should be hurried too rapidly, but I think that the time has come when we might take a forward step in this matter. As the hon. Member who moved the Motion said, the drop in the number of emigrants from this country
has been very marked since the close of the War. Before the War there were many people who regarded the Dominions as a place to which they could go themselves, but in present circumstances it is often practically impossible for any of those people to go out to-day. I submit that it is worth our while, from the point of view of building up the Empire, to have a very careful investigation into this matter to see whether it would not pay us financially, as well as morally, to advance this money.
There is another point which, I am afraid, raises a matter of controversy. That is the question of Empire preference. Speaking from my knowledge of at least one Dominion I think that there was a distinct feeling of soreness in the Empire last year when the four resolutions were defeated in this House. I am sure the fact that these four resolutions are going to be brought in this year will have a very good effect. I would ask the Government to take every opportunity of extending this preference so far as they can. We all know that the Prime Minister has given definite pledges that there shall be no taxation of food, but I believe that there are still various products which come from the Empire which are taxed in this country, and the Government might—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): The hon. and gallant Member is now referring to a matter which might involve legislation, and I am afraid that this is not the opportune time for raising it.

Captain HOLT: I must apologise if I have transgressed. May I turn for a minute to a question which I do not think has been touched on here to-night. That is the question of inter-communication in the Empire and the question of transport. I am glad that the Government are carrying out the airship policy which they have announced. It is vital that we should get more into touch with our Dominions and he drawn more together. Certain parts of the Dominions have suffered because the means of inter-communication have been very had and in some parts of the Empire news which has come from home has arrived there very much tainted by foreign views owing to having to pass through foreign countries. I would suggest that a fruitful field in
the future is the development of transport and inter-communication between the countries of the British Empire. I am convinced that the real prosperity of this country is bound up in the development of the Empire, but I would submit that the first measure to take is the redistribution of the population of the Empire and then the redistribution of the trade. What I would like to see is a British family of nations, prosperous, happy, contented, on good terms with all the world, but perhaps on a little better terms with one another. I am convinced that if we can obtain that it may right all our troubles.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: It is a pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Upton (Captain Holt) on having contributed a speech which, I think, the House appreciates from one who comes from the Dominions, and whose remarks are based on personal knowledge of Empire development. We all look forward to hearing him again on similar matters. We all owe a debt to the hon. Member for Grantham (Sir V. Warrender) who brought forward this Motion. It is very desirable that we should from time to time take stock of what is done, and what we think should be done, for the better development of the Empire. I am not going to enter into any argument as to which party in the House has deserved most in this matter. I think that that had better be left aside. We are all concerned here in doing the best we can for the Empire as a whole. When one part of the Empire suffers the whole Empire suffers. At the present time that part of the Empire which has suffered most during the War has been our own country. We were hit hardest and suffered most, and as we suffer so the whole of the Empire suffers with us.
I may make one slight criticism of the Motion which says, "having regard to the serious economic conditions in this country," as though we were looking to the development of the Empire because we were in difficulties ourselves. That is not so. We are looking to the improvement and betterment of the Empire as a whole, whatever part of the Empire may be suffering for the time being. I will tell the House a little story which shows how very much the Empire became united during the War. A friend of mine who
was in Australia at the time of the outbreak of the War said to the Australians how splendid it was that they were coming to the assistance of the Old Country. The answer he got was, "It is our War." Australia recognised that it was the War of the Empire, and did not take the view that they were merely coming to the assistance of the Old Country, and I do not think that we can lay too much stress on the fact that, when we speak of the Empire, we do not speak of part of the Empire, we do not exclude any part of the Empire, but we think of the Empire as a whole including ourselves.
The hon. Member for Grantham referred in his opening remarks to the lack of knowledge of the Empire which costs very largely in this country. I am afraid that we all know it and deplore it. I shall refer to one small point in which I think improvement can be made. I have all my life been trying to unlearn the wrong ideas which I got into my head as a schoolboy by seeing a map of Australia and a map of England in incorrect proportion and relation to each other. I would like to see in every school in this country an absolute Regulation that the maps, not only of the Empire but of the different parts of the world, should bear a strict relation to one another as regards size, and that they should not be like the figures in Noah's Ark, where the monkey and the elephant and Mr. Noah are all about the same size. I admit that when you get to a place and an area like Australia or Canada it might be necessary to have a very large map if you started with the British Isles on a large scale. I suggest having a good scale, map of Australia, and always alongside it a map of Great Britain on the same scale showing the relative difference between them. It is a small point, but an important one, which might, be kept in mind when we are thinking of educating our children as regards the relative importance and size of the different parts of the Empire. As regards the spread of knowledge generally, I would like to refer to the very important work that has been done, in the exchange of information and knowledge between the different Parliaments of the Empire, by the Empire Parliamentary Association, in connection with the very important declaration made by the. Prime Minister
the other day that he hopes a conference will be held next year in Australia. The value of the exchange of information that is informally acquired between members of the different Parliaments of the Empire cannot be exaggerated. I think we have already seen the grafting on the old constitutional stock of a new graft which may bear very rich and important fruit.
I wish to refer to the matters under discussion from a somewhat different angle from that which has been adopted by previous speakers. As I have said, the part of the Empire that has suffered most is our own country, and, therefore, if we want to get the Empire as a whole improved as best we may in the shortest possible time, we should begin by putting our own house in order. What we are suffering from at the present time most largely is overspending. We are not exercising the economy that we ought to be exercising. If we want to recover our power as a world market, we have to cut down all unnecessary expenditure, and the particular point which I wish to make there is this: If we can cheapen money, it means a great deal more to our Dominions to be able to save ½ per cent. or per cent. in borrowing from us than the millions that we may be spending in trying to help on development in other ways, because they get the enormous capital that is required for development of the outlying parts of the Empire. It is a somewhat disturbing thought that to-day our communications in different parts of the Empire are so bad. They are a great deal worse in many respects than they were 25 or 30 years ago. Our mail ships do not go so frequently or so fast. Fares for passengers are very much higher; freights for goods are very much higher. Our postage between the different parts of the Empire is not yet back to the penny rate. A great deal can be done in cutting down the cost of communication by post and cable, but in order to do that we must have economy, we must be able to save money and reduce our taxation at home, and by that means improve our communications with the Colonies. Improvement, of the communications between different parts of the Empire I regard as one of the most important matters that can be taken in hand. The nearer we can bring the
different parts of the Empire together, either by cable or by wireless, or by aeroplane, or by ship communication overseas, the better it is for the Empire, because it makes the whole foundation firmer and stronger.
I would like to make another little criticism of a word that has been used in the Amendment. That is the word "emigration." "Migration" is the more desirable word to use when we are talking about moving about in our own Empire. With regard to what has been said on the question of emigration, which I call migration, I would like to emphasise the point that too much reliance is often placed in some quarters upon migration being a cure for unemployment. I do not think that we are in any way entitled to look to migration as a cure for our present unemployment. On that subject I would quote from the Report of the Overseas Settlement Committee of 1923:
State-aided Empire settlement is not a means of securing the immediate relief of unemployment … The true aims of Empire settlement are to ensure that the fresh population acquired by the Dominions should as far as possible be British in sympathy, in spirit, and in origin, and at the same time to remedy fluctuations of trade by developing this country's markets and increasing the numbers of its customers, thus permanently minimising the risk of unemployment here and overseas.
After all, our unemployment, severe though it is, I do not regard in itself as a disease. It is a symptom of the disease, just in the same way as the irregular exchanges are a symptom of the disease. It is a symptom of the upsetting of the whole of the commercial body in Europe, and in fact, in all the world. We are not going to cure that until we get back to the adjustment of internal price levels to world price levels, and generally get back to a footing of normal trade. We cannot cure the trouble by endeavouring to push people out of this country into other parts of the Empire. I would like hon. Members to get out of their minds altogether the idea that migration is a cure for unemployment. I am not speaking in any way against migration, for I believe that a great deal can be done and has to be done in that direction. If the Committee that has been spoken of is set up, it will have a great deal of very important work to do. We cannot but feel somewhat dis-
appointed at what has been achieved under the Act of 1922. Under that Act the total number of persons who have been assisted to date is 88,000, and out of the £7,500,000 that might have been spent, less than £1,000,000 has been spent up to date. There is a variety of reasons for this, and the Dominions, naturally, are very particular as to whom they will take, and are most anxious that any scheme which is started may be a success. They have found in the course of experience that some of their estimates were wrong and had to be altered, and, consequently, the schemes that were put in hand have not gone as fast as they might have done. But there is this very interesting fact to be remembered in connection with that. Before the War the total number of persons who left this country was 285,000 in 1913, whereas in 1024, in spite of all this extra assistance that was being given for migration, the number was only 132,000. So it is to be thoroughly well understood that, although we are ready and providing the money for the purpose of assisting migration, the actual total results effected under the Act are almost insignificant when compared with what was achieved by people who were moving on their own account and without such assistance before the War.

Sir H. CROFT: Do not the figures the hon. Member has quoted convey to all of us the thought that if migration had gone on at the pre-War rate, we should have had something like 2,000,000 fewer people in this country now, and that that must have contributed greatly to a solution of our unemployment problem?

Sir R. HAMILTON: The point I was going to make was that one result which has followed on the reducing of the quota by the United States has been that, while only one-third of the people who left our shores previously went to the British Empire, now more than one-half of those who leave our shores find their new homes within the Empire. In order that migration may be the success that we all desire, there must be ample and thorough cooperation with our efforts on the part of the Dominions. As I have said, the schemes in hand have moved disappointingly slowly, but I think that if we let the Dominions understand how anxious we are to help in the scheme, and, further, that the success of the scheme must
depend upon their co-operation, we shall see in the course of the next year or two that much greater progress will be made than has been made during the last two or three years. I think there is a great opportunity for labour, not only in this country, but in Australia and in other parts of the Empire, to raise a very clear note and say that there is nothing in these schemes for moving populations within the Empire, from a congested part to a part where there is no congestion, which should give any cause for labour to have any apprehension for the future of its earning capacity.
6.0 P.M.
I would say a word or two with regard to the development of Crown Colonies and Dependencies. There, again, one of the most important assistances that we can give to develop the Crown Colonies is by means of our credit and by improving communications. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Webb) referred to the remarkable progress that has been made in recent years in the Gold Coast. In connection with the remarks which he made, I should like to stress the fact that it is not only on the Gold Coast, but in other parts of Africa, that a remarkable advance has been made by the native proprietor growing his own crops. We are a little inclined, in speaking of our tropical Crown Colonies and Dependencies, to think only of our own brethren there. While I would not desire to say anything that would interfere with the proper development of European plantations in our Crown Colonies, I think our first duty is to see that the inhabitants of those countries are encouraged to grow useful crops as proprietors and to see that they are not bound to work only for wages on the plantations of Europeans. Past experience has shown wonderful results under this system in both West and East Africa with regard to cocoa and cotton and it has been shown also that coffee and rubber can be grown by the native proprietor. We owe a duty to the inhabitants of our Crown Colonies and Dependencies to see that they are made secure in the power to work the land of those Colonies and to enjoy the fruits of their labour. Along with that, in order to get the best results of development by means of native proprietors' work, we should do what we can to educate them in growing in the best possible style what is necessary for
the world market. A great deal of criticism is levelled at what is termed our failure to educate the natives of Africa, but hon. Members who wish to raise criticisms on that point should be referred to the new methods of education, details of which may be found in the Report of the Advisory Committee on Native Education in the British African Dependencies recently presented. A study of that Report will show that the educational system envisaged for the future will have a marked result in the development of the African Colonies and Dependencies by the energy of the native people themselves. In conclusion I desire to urge two points. If we desire to see the Empire developed, as soon as may be, we must practice economy at home wherever we can practice it and, at the same time, we must encourage the inhabitants of out Crown Colonies to get the best out of the land by working for themselves as well as for planters.

Mr. RAMSDEN: In rising for the first time to speak in this House I ask for, and am certain I shall receive, that indulgence and kindness which is always extended to a new Member. I should like to deal with the position of some of the poorer and perhaps weaker members of the great British Empire, particularly those known as Crown Colonies and Protectorates. The larger Dominions, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the others, have now reached manhood and are able, to a very large extent, to look after themselves, but I feel that in the smaller Colonies we have a great field for development. We require at the present moment two most important things: fresh markets, and fresh supplies of raw material which will enable us to carry on our manufactures in this country. There is no better place in which to look for these two things than within the borders of our own Empire and among the less developed countries which form part of it. I propose to mention one or two countries by way of illustrating what I mean. In the first place, I refer to the only Colony which we have in South America, namely, British Guiana. That is a Colony of considerable size. It is somewhere about three times the size of Scotland, and has a population of round about 300,000. It produces many of the raw materials which we require. Sugar is one of its most
important exports, and there are many other things which could be grown in that part of the world. I believe it is quite possible, for instance, to produce cotton there in large quantities, and the amount of sugar at present grown in British Guiana. is very small in comparison with the production of which it is capable. I am also informed that there are lands lying near the coast where something like 10 times the present output of sugar could be grown. British Guiana is crying out for development, but it is severely handicapped by the fact that it only possesses about 100 miles of railway. If we found some means to facilitate the transport system, whether by new railways, or roadways which would carry motor transport, or by more easy navigation of the rivers, we should be doing the best thing to help this Colony.
That is one instance, and quite neat to it, relatively speaking, we have the colony of British Honduras, which is somewhere about the size of Wales. In this colony there are only between 20 and 25 miles of railway. In this case also, if the country could be developed and opened up, very great things would follow. We should be able to import front there many of the things which we require, and we should be able to sell them considerably snore manufactured goods. I have myself been in the tropics, and after visiting a number of our colonial possessions, I find it easy to realise how important is the question of transport It has been my misfortune to be stuck on a sandbank in a river for a couple of clays, not able to move, watching a family of alligators on the bank. It is very interesting experience for the first 10 minutes, but after a time it palls. Some thing very different from that is required if we are to develop these Colonies. I have been struck by the fact that in a small island in the West Indies belonging to our American cousins—I refer to Porto Rico—very great things have been done. This Island was taken over from the Spanish after the American War with that nation in 1898, and the Americans have tried to open up the country to the fullest possible extent. They have been very successful in doing so, because it appears that at present the exports and imports of this small island equal those of six Central American republics, although those six republics represent 60 times its size and four times
its population. The reason why Porto Rico has gone ahead so quickly under American rule is that they have built highways and made it possible for the people to develop the country and to produce all the articles which it is capable of producing. It is now easy for land owners in Porto Rico to send their produce to the nearest port and have it shipped out of the country.
It does not matter how rich any of these countries may be or how fertile may be the soil unless the soil is accessible to the people and unless the produce of the soil can be sent easily to some port for shipment abroad. I suggest there should be some method by which the smaller Colonies could be helped to increase their transport facilities, because by doing so we should be giving a great help to the whole Empire. I should like to see a fund established, which might be called the Empire Development Fund, by means of which money can be lent at cheap rates for this purpose. It might be necessary for the Government to lend the money or to guarantee the interest or to provide some inducement for the investor, but whatever means were adopted I do not think there could be a better investment. Many benefits are to be obtained in this way. In the first place, the mere development of any of these Colonies by the building of railways or roads or the opening of ports will provide employment in this country. It will involve orders for steel rails and engines thus doing much for a trade which has suffered and is still suffering. When these countries are developed they can produce more goods such as cotton, and Lancashire needs a supply of cotton independent of that which conies from foreign countries. The more raw cotton we get the cheaper the price and the easier to sell the manufactured goods. Furthermore, when these Colonies are developed they will become year by year bigger buyers of goods manufactured in this country. There are so many benefits obtainable from the development of these countries that I hope the question will receive consideration from all parties. As other speakers have said we have a great heritage; I hope posterity will not be able to say that we failed in our generation to understand its need and failed to carry out our duty with regard to it.

Mr. HADEN GUEST: I fear I cannot join in the chorus of congratulation which has been sounded in connection with the Empire policy of this country. If it be really true, as the Mover and Seconder have suggested, that the amount of our expenditure in this respect now is little more than it was twenty years ago, that does not seem to square with the pæan of praise which the Mover sung regarding the Conservative party. I know that during those twenty years another party had for a time charge of the affairs of this country, but for a considerable part of that period the Conservative party was responsible, and I frankly confess that the more one looks into the Empire question, the less one can be genuinely satisfied with what has been done by this country.
To begin with, the whole question of Empire is very little understood in this country. You ask people about Australia, and they tell you that they like Australians immensely, and they probably say afterwards that they come from New Zealand, or some equally absurd remark of that description. Literally, a great many people do not know where the different parts of our Empire are. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment complacently referred to the effect of Preference, but he must know as well as anyone in this House that, whether or not Preference would have an effect of an advantageous kind to the Dominions and ourselves—and for my part I think its effect would be advantageous—that effect must necessarily be only very small, and would only affect a very small area of the problem.
I could not help thinking, when listening to some of the speeches this afternoon, that perhaps Imperialism and Empire in this country are something in the nature of an after-dinner reverie, an after-dinner ideal, in which people indulge when they have been nicely fed and pleasantly wined, and they are just beginning to let their expansive emotions go, without any serious intention of doing anything very much about it. What about the question of migration? Money was voted for migration and is at the disposal of the Government, and has been at the disposal of Governments before this one, and that money has not been spent, because the arrangements could not be made. For one reason, there was a lack of understanding between ourselves and the Dominions, and steps were not taken
to get the understanding necessary before a real policy could be carried out. The suggestions that have been put before us, with some of which I agree, especially those put forward by the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, both of whom have made excellent contributions to the Debate, have on the whole not been complete enough, or big enough, or urgent enough. In my own way, I have come to regard this question of the solution of the Empire problem as one of the three big things that face this country. We are in a condition of acute economic distress, and some way out of that will be found, I feel sure, by means of making use of our Imperial resources—not all the way out by a great deal. It is not a question of waiting for a long time, but of doing something very quickly indeed if the policy is to have any real effect.
The Mover of the Amendment stressed the connection between migration and unemployment, and I must frankly say to him that, much as I like what he said, I did not like that aspect of the subject, because I do not believe you ought to regard migration as a cure for unemployment or that you should connect migration directly with unemployment. The indirect effect, I agree, will be a good one on unemployment, but you ought not to say that you are going to persuade or give opportunities to your unemployed to go overseas when they are unemployed. I would rather see men who are employed at the present time go overseas, and let the unemployed be absorbed in the trades and industries of this country, than I would regard sending people overseas as a direct cure for unemployment. When one comes to look at the question of migration, what is the real obstacle in the way? If you go to the Dominions and ask their opinions, they will tell you simply and clearly that what they want are, on the one hand, agricultural labourers and, on the other hand, domestic servants. The career of an agricultural labourer or of a domestic servant is honourable and useful, but you cannot exactly call it the most attractive thing to offer to people as the only way of going to the Dominions, good as they are. And when do you ask people to go to the Dominions? When they are unemployed, through the avenue of the Employment Exchanges, and that again is not
exactly the most attractive way. If a man is absolutely down and out and takes refuge in a Salvation Army or a Church Army shelter, he will learn more about the facilities for emigration than ever he has learned before.
That is not the right spirit. We ought to have the Dominions regarded as a career, exactly as the Indian Civil Service and other great Services are regarded, and if hon. Members will make inquiry, as I have, they will find that not one of our great public schools takes cognisance of the Dominions as a career. There are certain schools that do that, and with regard to the elementary and secondary schools, obviously they are out of consideration. If you begin to ask the educationist whether he is preparing men and women for that spacious life of the Dominions and of our Empire, about which one hears in after-dinner speeches, he scratches his head, because he does not know quite what you are talking about. They are not being prepared for the spacious life of the Dominions, because the majority of the people in this country do not believe in the spacious life of the Dominions. They are very doubtful about it, and rightly so. Why should a man go from this country when he is unemployed if he is going to be unemployed in Canada or Australia? What is the use of it? Unless you can show him definitely that you are going to give him more opportunities there than he has here, he will quite rightly say, "I am not going to move."
What we have to do, if nothing more can be done—and I hope the two Committees which have been suggested will be set up, but we want something much more than that—is to get all the constituent parts of our Empire together, really to go into this question of migration and tell us whether or not they want men and women, and on what terms they are prepared to have them, and, secondly, whether they are willing to take steps themselves to get at the land, which is tied up at the present time, suitable for close settlement, and use that land to endow the men and the women who go out from this country with their share in the Dominions to which I, myself, believe they are entitled. I believe, in fact, that we ought to have an Imperial Conference to deal with this subject of the use of the land of the Dominions. In
certain of the Dominions, in certain parts of Australia, there are people holding land there by the hundred thousand and the million acres, for periods of 20 years, on a purely nominal rental of 15s. per thousand acres, holding up land which is very suitable indeed for close settlement and for farming of a very much better kind than the purely pastoral farming; and I think that we ought to ask the Dominions whether they are willing to set free that land to help our people who, in this country, are in such urgent need. You are not going to get at that without a conference of all the Dominions, and you are not going to get at another important question.
We have not only got men in this country, but we have also got immense resources of money and credit, and I should like to see this country be prepared to back up, let us say, agricultural banks in the different Dominions, which would lend to the men put on the land—the land freed, in the way I suggest, by the Dominion itself—all the money which they required for a period of 15 years to set them up. That is being done at the present time by an agricultural bank in Western Australia, and that could be done on a very much bigger scale, and would enable us to settle a very large number of people on the land, without, of course, incurring for ourselves a very large amount of financial responsibility. May I suggest that when you want people to take a journey you should make the beginning of the journey rather more attractive than it is at the present time? You should set up in this country a number of training centres where people can go and be trained, and where they can be shown how they will be living when they go abroad and what kind of work they will have to do. You can do it. The difficulties exist, and they exist to be surmounted, but unless we take bold steps, we are not going to get out of the impasse into which we have come.
I take a very pessimistic view of our present situation unless very bold steps are taken. I should like to see this Empire Conference, on land, on the settlement of men, on the giving of credit, and on the training of men, get together and evolve a very bold policy indeed for the settling, not of tens and hundreds, but of thousands of men. I
would like to see the same policy which was used during the War in the organisation of armies used now in the organisation of battalions of migration, and I believe that you could, by doing that, get a very long way towards the solution of your Empire problem. March out your battalions, your brigades, and your divisions to the Dominions, with an organisation that really means business and is prepared to support them, and the party which does that can begin to congratulate itself on its Empire policy. At the present time our Empire policy is really a very polite after-dinner affair, which does not really amount to very much, and I confess I do not feel very polite about it.
One final word. May I suggest that the real reason why Empire policy has not been backed by the Labour party in this country is because Empire policy has never taken the democracy of this country into its confidence? It has been a policy very largely dictated by the interests of exporters, of merchants, and of manufacturers, but not by the interests of the man who is himself going to be a worker, who is himself going to dig the land, work in the mill, or work in the factory, and if we can take the democracy of this country, the workers of this country, into our confidence in a real Empire policy, I believe there will be no doubt whatsoever of its success, but it must be a policy of a bold kind, for nothing less than a bold policy can possibly help us out of our present difficulty.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark North (Mr. Haden Guest) has brought into this Debate a certain amount of enthusiasm, and I quite agree with him that we should march out the men in their battalions and divisions, and I only hope that in this respect he will be an apostle in his party. I was very gratified indeed to hear from the right hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) his views on emigration, expressing as he did, I take it, the considered view of the Labour party, and it must have been gratifying to many of those of us who had the opportunity of listening to the Prime Minister of Western Australia the other afternoon at the Empire Parliamentary Room to know that, as far as he was concerned, as a leader of the Labour party in that State, he was prepared to do all that he possibly could to assist migration, realising as
he did his responsibility as the head of a State which is possessed of a territory of a million square miles with only something like 350,000 people. The right hon. Gentleman thought Australia had done fairly well in comparison with what strides had been made by America during the list 100 years, but I do not think we can look forward to Australia being peopled at anything like the same rate as the United States. First of all, they are within a week's journey of the teeming millions of Europe, and until the last few years immigration was encouraged, before they had certain restrictive measures introduced whereby the various nationals were admitted on a percentage basis. On the other hand, you have to realise that Australia, rightly or wrongly, has decided for a "White Australia policy," and that she, instead of being surrounded by teaming millions of Europeans, is surrounded by teaming millions of Asiatics whom she does not propose to admit. So that I do not think that we can contemplate at all that the realisation of the hon. Member in this respect will be satisfied.
May I take this opportunity of congratulating my overseas colleague in the person of the Member for West Ham (Captain Holt) on his maiden speech I think it is very gratifying indeed to find in this Debate that there are so many of the younger members of the Conservative party who are realising their Empire responsibilities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Zetland (Sir R. Hamilton), pointed out that he did not think that emigration was going to do much in the way of solving the unemployment problem. I should like, however, to draw his attention to what is rather a startling answer to that remark, and that is that, within the last week, the Dominion Government has placed in this country an order for £5,000,000 of shipping. Of this 65 percent. will be spent in wages. Surely that is going to have some effect upon unemployment here? I would remind hon. Members that at the same time people in this country have placed their orders for shipping in Germany, which is rather inconsistent, as it seems to me. I would like to point out that this question of emigration is not one of a fleeting character. It is a permanent question. To it we have got to give consideration. We have to realise, as was pointed out
the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that at the present time we have as many people actually employed in this country as in 1914, and that, rot-withstanding our heavy taxation and burdens following the War, at the present time the unemployed represents something like a million and a quarter.
It is very evident to me that we must tackle this thing in a different way from that which we have up to the present time. Generally speaking, this House of Commons does give greater consideration to the question of emigration than it used to do years ago. At one time one spoke with bated breath, as if it were a crime to induce people to leave this country and to go overseas. So far as the Labour party is concerned, we know now where they stand. I believe they honestly realise that at present we have got too many people in this country. There is no question about it, we cannot carry a population greater than we have, at the present time. Every man who leaves this country is a potential customer, in the case of Australia, of £12 per head, and in the case of New Zealand, of £14 per head. They are, only moving from one part of the Empire to another, just as you move from Clydebank to Westminster. They have the same hopes, the same aspirations as we have, and we have to realise that when they go, they are not lost to the Empire. They are still defenders of the Empire as well as producers in it.
In conclusion, I would only like to say that I regret very much that out of £14,000,000 that has been apportioned for migration within the Empire, only something like 10 per cent. has been expended. That, I think, is scandalous. I agree with the last speaker that something should be done. I did not hear the suggestion made that a Committee should be appointed with the object of going into this question, but I am certainly desirous of doing all I can in a humble capacity, and as a private Member, to assist in this very important question, realising what it means for the future of the British Empire. In Australia, one realises what it means, for in that continent there are 14,000 miles of coastline, and only six million people. In the interests of the British Empire, we must populate Australia, and the other great Dominions.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I understand that there has been an arrangement made that this Amendment shall be disposed of in reasonable time in order that another subject may be introduced before you, Mr. Speaker, leave the Chair. The House will, therefore, forgive me if I do not reply to some of the points raised. I regret that we have not had longer time than we have had to discuss the very important subject which has been introduced to-day. In the course of the Debate, we have listened to no less than three maiden speeches. I should like to take this early opportunity of congratulating those three hon. Members on the manner in which for the first time they have addressed the House. The Debate has ranged really about three main subjects—that of migration, that of Crown Colony and Protectorate development, and the third—introduced by the hon. Member for Dartford (Lieut.-Colonel McDonnell)—dealing with scientific research and the importance of organisation in the Colonial Office. I will not say much on this occasion in regard to the second subject, because, very shortly, the Report of the Commission of which I had the honour to be Chairman on East Africa will be available to the House, and that raises generally, not only questions relatting to East Africa, but the whole question of transportation, and what is necessary for the development of our tropical possessions in Africa. I think my principal duty is to say something in regard to migration.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I presume the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will be laid on the Table, and that no effect will be given to it until the house has had an opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, what I may call current needs will be dealt with, and not "held up," but no big question of policy will be dealt with until an opportunity has been given for discussion. Let me, then, deal first with the subject of migration. I entirely agree with all those hon. Members who have spoken, that we must do everything we possibly can to speed up this matter, that we must do everything we can to increase the number of voluntary migrants who are anxious and ready to develop the Empire, and to proceed overseas. Let me assure
the House that there is to-day no question of forcing anybody to go, for, in fact, the number of people who are anxious to go far exceeds the number who at present can go. It is entirely a question of cost in the first instance, and in the second of arrangements for the necessary work, necessary developments, and necessary arrangements for the reception of these people and their training and starting in the Dominions.
The policy of the Empire Settlement Act, I believe, is absolutely sound, namely, that the migration problem is essentially one of a partnership between this country and the self-governing Dominions. It would be quite impossible, let me say quite frankly, for us to set up a committee here in London to inquire into the working of the Overseas Settlement Act unless we could get on that committee full representation of the self-governing Dominions. My own view is that the time has not yet come for that, because it does take a considerable amount of time to get the machinery of that Act put into working order; for this reason, that this matter is on a "fifty-fifty" basis, that is to say, on a basis that we defray 50 per cent, of any expenses under that Act in connection with settlement, and the receiving Dominions, or the State—as the case be—contribute the other half. There is also the case of the voluntary societies, without whose help and co-operation we could do nothing—valuable bodies who for a long time have interested themselves in migration. We have to consider them, and we are doing so.
Let me, in order that hon. Members may get a true perspective of this problem, and the difficulties inherent in it, say exactly what is the position. Ever since the War, the volume of migration from this country has been very much larger than it was before the War. Migration always, it must be remembered, goes where the trade is, and migration is difficult when trade is bad. That is the first thing to remember. The second thing to remember is the enormous increase of cost of the passages, and, still more, the cost of the various other things, building materials and the rest, which are necessary for the successful carrying out of any settlement scheme. But for the help of the Empire Settlement Act there is, I think, no doubt
that, so far from the figures being, it may be, disappointing to-day, we should have had very little migration, at all events, to Australia and New Zealand. It is a remarkable thing that of the total number of migrants who went from this country to Australia in 1923, 70 per cent., approximately, were assisted out. When you remember that earlier there was no such thing as assisted passages—that it is a comparatively new policy—you will see what important work is being done.
Last year, under the Empire Settlement Act, the number of assisted migrants did show a substantial increase on the year before. The number was 24,449 to Australia, 7,737 to New Zealand, and 9,379 to Canada—a total of 41,565 assisted migrants. But that is not the total migration. The bulk of the migrants who go to Canada go without any assistance whatever, owing to its being nearer, cheaper, and also owing to the fact that schemes for assistance are in the main arranged quite definitely on the basis of land settlement. We have the co-operation of the Canadian Government, and a new Land Settlement Scheme has gone through. The scheme was initiated by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) when he was on this side of the House, and was Chairman of the Oversea Settlement Committee during the period of the Labour Government. He showed in all these migration proposals, if I may say so, zeal and enthusiasm, and we owe a great deal to him in respect of the scheme to which I have alluded. Canada agreed with the Labour Government under the new scheme to take 3,000 British families during the present and the two ensuing years, and to settle them upon farms—a matter most expensive and most difficult to arrange. That is the first big one of its kind, the scheme for settling 3,000 families in Canada.
The principal scheme, which is now under consideration, is a much larger Australian scheme. We found, when I was on the Oversea Settlement Committee, and it was also found by my predecessors in the late Government, that one of the first things to be done was to secure effective co-operation between the Australian States, which own the land, and the Commonwealth Government, which controls migration. It is only in the last few weeks that real and effective progress has been made. There were
conferences, in January this year, between the Commonwealth Government and the representatives of the various States, and they have put up to us for our consideration a very much bigger project than we have had hitherto. The negotiations, the final detailed negotiations in regard to that scheme, are still proceeding, but when I tell the House I cannot give further details now, it is because the financial scale of it is so very much bigger than we have hitherto contemplated, that it requires a good deal of consideration and going into actual detail. It will involve, spread over a period of years, an expenditure by the Commonwealth and the States of Australia of, approximately, £20,000,000, in addition to £14,000,000 on existing schemes.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether care will be taken to see that we bring these people from really congested areas, and not from the rural areas, where we want all the people we can get?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any such assurance, because the voluntary principle of the scheme is the essential thing. It would be fatal to the whole of this Empire-migration if we were to give it out from this country that we prohibited any man from any rural area going to the Dominions if he wished to do so. To say we will assist such-and-such men and we will not assist another class would be to wreck the whole thing from the start.

Mr. HURD: Will the scheme include the training of town people for settlement on the land overseas?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question of training has been raised; but this question of restriction has had such a disastrous effect in the past that I am bound to make it quite clear, seeing that the hon. Gentleman has interrupted me, that His Majesty's Government cannot undertake to consider for one moment any restriction of that kind, which would be most unfavourably received in the Dominions and in this country. We have had a good many discussions in regard to training. It has been discussed with many of the Dominion representatives, and they all express the same opinion when the subject is gone into, namely, that the best place for the training of
these people on the land is on the other side, in the country to which they are going. Though there is a certain similarity between all agricultural work all over the world, it is absolutely essential, especially in Australia, that the conditions of life in Australia, the conditions of climate, the whole economic circumstances of the agricultural development there, should be envisaged, and if we are spending any money on training at all, and we desire to do so, it should be spent on the people out there.
The Government entirely agree with those speakers who have emphasised the fact that migration schemes and assistance to migration are not designed to take a man who is now unemployed in this country and put him down in some other country. The idea of migration is to prevent people becoming unemployed, and, still worse, becoming unemployable, by giving them a chance in the wider surroundings and the greater opportunities of the lands across the seas. For that reason we attach enormous importance to what is called juvenile migration, to taking the boy and the girl of school age and giving them, under the best possible and most carefully safeguarded conditions, a chance to develop in those new countries, whether on the land or otherwise, before they become unemployable in this country through following blind alley occupations in an overcrowded labour market between the time of leaving school and full manhood.
Time is getting on, and I will turn to the question of cost. We are very hopeful of reducing the tremendous cost of migration. According to the figure given to me, it costs to start a family—a man and his wife and two children, say—to send him from this country and to start him as a farmer in Australia costs at least £1,500. That, of course, is tremendous, and it does prevent us from getting the battalions and divisions which were suggested by one hon. Member. We have got to go into this question of cost all along the line. In reply to what the hon. Member for North Southwark (Dr. Haden Guest) said, I would tell him quite frankly that the land problem is not an acute problem. The Australian authorities assure us that where it is necessary to re-acquire land for closer settlement, it is not a great difficulty, and the price is not high; that
there is still a good deal of land in the possession of the Government that can be rendered available, and that is not really a serious part of the problem.
One of the principal difficulties has been the enormously high cost of fares. I am glad to be able to announce to the House that we have just concluded a new agreement in regard to passage rates to Australia and New Zealand which effects very considerable reductions. A person accepted under the new scheme, which, so far as Australia. is concerned, will come into operation on the 1st of June this year, accepted as a suitable settler by the Australian authorities, can obtain a passage at less than half the ordinary fare, i.e, at £16 10s., and the whole of this amount may be advanced as a loan. In addition to that, free passages will be granted to children under 12 years of age in the case of Australia, and under 19 years of age in the case of New Zealand. The effect of these new rates is that a family with three children can now go to Australia for £55, which may be loaned, and to New Zealand for as low as £22. The minimum rate for a single man to New Zealand is brought down, under the new agreement, to £13 15s., which is, of course, immeasurably less than anything we have had since before the War.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Who is doing it? Well, I will not press that now.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A good deal of information will shortly be set out definitely in the Report of the Overseas Settlement Committee, but I thought I would give some instances just to show examples of the proposals. Now I want to take up one or two points mentioned in the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Sir V. Warrender), in his extremely valuable speech in moving the Amendment, talked, and quite rightly talked, about the fact that there is still such terrible ignorance of the Empire, still such ignorance of the opportunities which it contains, not merely for migration, but the opportunities in its trades and its industries and its resources. He suggested that just as Australian school boys have been coming here as a part of their school life, as a very important incident in their whole education, so something ought to be done in this country to organise for boys in this country a similar
return tour to different parts of the Empire. My Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education welcomed the idea yesterday, and his co-operation is assured. I think we must look to securing the co-operation of local education authorities and of voluntary associations.
The idea is one which is well worth encouraging, and as Under-Secretary of the Colonies I can say that I know it will be singularly welcome to the Dominions if we organise a tour of that kind. It might be possible to organise, literally, a world tour. A party of boys selected from, preferably, our secondary schools—our secondary school boys, who would require some financial assistance—as part of their school life, might go, possibly, right across Canada, across the Pacific to New Zealand and Australia, and back by South Africa to this country. If we can only get boys who will spread the gospel when they come home, who will pass on to all their neighbours what they have learned, if we get the right type of secondary school boy, it will not only be a great opportunity for them, but a great help to us in bringing home to the democracy the opportunities the Dominions offer. I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark, who said it is essential that this question of migration should be kept out of party politics, that we should all go forward, in the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), to solve it together, and, above all, that we should get the ordinary wage-earner of this country as interested as those of us who have had the opportunity of seeing the Empire ourselves, which they have not had.
I must allude to one or two very important new developments where we look for help, and one in particular has to do with the activity of the Churches. I dare say those who take an interest in this subject saw that at the Session last November of the National Assembly of the Church of England a resolution was unanimously adopted to the effect that migration ought to be dealt with on a higher level of ideals than heretofore, and they have set up a Board for overseas settlement. Everyone knows what splendid work has been done by the Salvation Army, and by other Churches in this matter; and where you have a religious organisation, such as the Church of
England, spread all over the Empire, you can, by the Government co-operating with them, secure almost ideal conditions for ensuring that the migrant gets a fair chance, and good conditions. Having said that, it should always be said that the success of migration depends upon the individual. In the long run, it does depend upon the grit and determination of the individual to make good in the new country.
7.0 P.M.
I must pass on from migration to one or two other points which were raised in the Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dartford (Lieut.-Colenel McDonnell) referred to the vast importance of scientific research, nor only with reference to Dominion development, but to Colonial Government. The more I see of the work the more convinced I am of the urgent importance of this question and of the lee-way that has to be made up. It is only now that we have got an Imperial college of tropical agriculture where we can train cur staff for the agricultural work in the great tropical Empire. We have had no institute of research into mycology. We have a bureau over here dealing with these problems, but I entirely agree with him in saying that I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year will have to be pressed very hard by the Colonial Office to do a little more in that direction, because I have seen how much lee-way we have to make up. The total amount spent on research of all kinds up to the present, is about £19,000 by this country and about £24,000 in addition by the Colonies and Protectorates themselves. That is to say, they subsidise bureaux here, and in fact these self-governing Dependencies at the present time are spending more than we are on research without which we shall never get a real move on in the direction of development.
He alluded to this question in connection with the organisation of the Colonial Office. Well, here again the Colonial Office has expanded in this sense, that we are getting the co-operation of a large number of volunteers in the more technical aspect of our work. Since the War there has been set up a colonial research committee, since the War there has been set up an advisory committee on medical services and sanitation, and
two years ago an advisory committee on native education. That has enabled the Colonial Office to bring into the administration of the Service, not merely the individuals who are there and who have acquaintance with the particular technical subjects, but to associate with the work of the Colonial Office—the day to day work—some of the best experts available in this country, and, as Chairman, I cannot say how big is the debt we owe to such men as Sir Michael Sadler, the Master of Rugby, and others who are ready to place their time at the disposal of the Colonial Office in going through all the reports and of the school work that is going on. In that way the work of the Colonial Office is being immensely assisted. I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant. Friend that as the Empire develops—and it is developing tremendously rapidly—we require an increase of specialised knowledge. Every year it is growing.
We now have under the ultimate control of the Colonial Office an ever-increasing State railway system scattered throughout the globe—[An HON. MEMBER: "And running very well!"]—and running very well. But it requires the assistance of knowledge which no administrative staff permanently in this country can ever provide, and consequently the Colonial Office has to keep calling in to its aid the assistance, both of committees and individuals for the supervision of this kind of work. I feel very strongly in the matter that as the agricultural development takes place in the Crown Colonies and Settlements, it requires strengthening at the Colonial Office.
I agree with what he said about the possibilities of an interchange where it affects the contracts of the existing staff. The existing staff at the Colonial Office have been recruited on the understanding that they should not go for service overseas, but this may require consideration in regard to future recruits. It is a matter which is being gone into at present. I feel strongly that not only should no opportunity be lost for Members of this House, through the means of the Empire Parliamentary Association and other means, to travel, going about our Dominions and Colonies, but also that no opportunity should be lost of giving the permanent civil servant
at the Colonial Office an equal chance to see the other end. Certainly, on the trips I have taken both to the West Indies and East Africa, I am glad I was assisted by the very able help of a permanent official from the Colonial Office. I am quite sure it is most needed, and what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb) said is perfectly true, namely, that Colonies do not like being over-governed from Whitehall, especially if they think those people have never seen what the tropical sun is like, and do not know what it is to be up against the strange Scottish apparition which he quoted to us. In all these things I can assure the House that the Colonial Office at this moment is fully alive to its opportunities.
The only thing I will refer to in connection with the Crown Colonies and Protectorates raised to-day, and as it has been referred to, and has also been the subject of very sarcastic and hostile criticism by a well-known Liberal Peer, Lord Leverhulme lately, I must say one word. Lord Leverhulme has given the public of this country to understand that Nigeria is badly governed and overtaxed, and that its progress is altogether poor. Let us see some of the facts. There are few parts of the British Empire making more rapid progress to-day than Nigeria. The total trade of Nigeria in the year before the War, 1913, was £13,429,000. In 1923, it was £21,156,000, and in 1924, £25,090,000. Nigeria is one of the newest countries as a British dependency. 1900 is the year when you may say Northern Nigeria, not then united and federated into Nigeria—there were three Colonies, the Colony of Lagos, Southern Nigeria, and Northern Nigeria—was the starting point of the present administration throughout the country. In that year, the export of ground nuts from Nigeria, in which Lord Leverhulme is particularly interested, was 210 tons. Last year in round numbers it was 78,000 tons. In the first year, 1901, the export of cocoa was 206 tons. Last year it was 37,000 tons. In 1901 the export of cotton lint was three tons. Last year it was 4,600 tons. That is not bad progress in that short space of time in tropical Africa. The revenue the year before the War, 1913, was £3,462,000; last year it was £6,340,000, in spite of the reduction of the export duties and the loss of a considerable quantity of pre-War revenue
which obtained from trade in spirits which has now been stopped. Now what does that mean? It means that at the present moment Nigeria ha, developed and is developing fast.
The railway system runs everywhere, and there are great works and great undertakings, and the taxation to-day is only 5s. per head which is, I believe, lower than that of any other portion of the British Empire. Nigeria to-day has surplus assets, that is to say, revenue over expenditure, to its credit of three and a half millions cash, or two and a quarter millions more than at the end of the War. The railway mileage open for traffic is 1,126 miles, and we have only 15 miles to complete the new Great Eastern Railway. That will be through in a few months, when the whole of the construction staff will be able to go on with more railways in the North-West of Nigeria. So far from Nigeria being a Colony which should be scrapped, it is a Colony of which any British Administration and any Colonial Office, and any Colonial Secretary can justly be proud.

Mr. THOMAS: I would just ask the hon. Gentleman, in fairness to Sir Hugh Clifford, to inform the House that Lord Leverhulme's complaint is due to the refusal of the Colonial Office, both of the previous Government and myself, to allow indentured labour there, because we feel we have a trust and obligation to the native.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware of the reason for Lord Leverhulme's discomfort. Since his return from West Africa, Lord Leverhulme has made a renewed attack on the Nigerian administration, and the Home Government, so I thought it only necessary to say to the House what I said this afternoon in regard to the very remarkable progress of that part of Africa. As I say, there will be further opportunity of discussing that particular question. One word about another point. We listened to a particularly well-informed speech of the hon. Member for North Bradford (Mr. Ramsden), and I wish to make a reference to the point he made with regard to doing more for British Guiana and British Honduras.
I would like to say, of course, that there are great difficulties, especially in
British Guiana. It is large and full of resources, but its population is not large. I particularly refer to this to-night, because it is no use building railways and making developments unless you see whether you are going to get the population.

Mr. RAMSDEN: May I point out that I only quoted British Guiana and British Honduras as illustrations. I believe they are examples of what can be done in other countries.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is clear that climatic conditions prevent British Guiana being suitable for white settlement. The sole function of the white man there is really that of an overseer. The one chance is to get a tropical population, and the whole of our efforts ought to be devoted to securing that end. If you get a tropical population in British Guiana there are enormous possibilities. The authority I have quoted asserted that there were enormous possibilities with regard to rice growing, sugar growing, forestry development, the discovery of new minerals, including precious stones, and all these are waiting for a population. It would not be right to compare that vast and mighty country with the conditions which prevail in Africa. There we have the population and the production.
Everywhere I went in Africa I found that state of things. The capacity of the people to produce is there, and the population is there, but there are so few railways and roads, and the harbours are all chockablock, and you cannot get the stuff away, and what is really wanted within the next few years in West and East Africa is a big effort to steadily increase the transport facilities. I entirely agree with those hon. Members who have pointed out that this would not only mean orders to the British engineering trade for bridge materials, locomotives and the like, but as you get the development you must get further production, which means further purchasing power for goods made in this country. I regard the development of the Dominions by migration, and the Crown Colonies and Protectorates by further transport facilities and scientific research, as the finest investment, not only for the British investor, but for the people of this country as a whole. Let us concentrate upon developing our Imperial
heritage, and in proportion as we do so, we shall find relief from the social and economic troubles which bear so heavily upon us at this moment.

Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. AMMON: I turn from the fascinating subject we have been discussing to the consideration of the ease of the ex-service men. Earlier in the Session, in response to questions put to the Prime Minister by myself, he agreed that time should be found to consider the agreement which had been arrived at between the Government and certain representatives of the ex-service men now temporarily employed in the Civil Service. In that connection one has a right to make a slight complaint, because we had almost to force the opportunity to obtain this discussion, and it comes at a time when to a great extent it will be prejudiced by the fact that the official Whips will be put on when we are dealing with a matter which after all should call for the impartial consideration of the House, and should be dealt with by Members of Parliament in their independent position.
Perhaps it will not be out of place if I make reference to an incident which took place during the lifetime of the last Government. It will be remembered that there was an attack made upon the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the question known as the ex-ranker officers. and my right hon. Friend was charged with having given a certain promise to these people, and on coming into office and examining the position, finding that the statements submitted to him were not quite borne out by the facts, he intimated that the matter would have to be inquired into. He was then fiercely assailed by the then Opposition which is now the Government, and in the course of that Debate the present Prime Minister took occasion to give a little homily to the House. I will quote what the Prime Minister said. Here are his words:
But the Prime Minister, I think, touched a very serious and difficult point when he spoke about the questionnaire. Apparently some hon. Members sign these questionnaires without inquiry. My right hon. Friend who sits beside me sometimes signs a questionnaire having made an
inquiry. Surely, however, the best course is the course I invariably pursue—I never answer I The most timorous may take heart for I have done that time after time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March. 1924; col. 2666, Vol. 170.]
That was sound advice, and it so impressed the House that hon. Members on all sides made up their minds that that would be the policy they would pursue at the last General Election, and they refused to commit themselves to any such things when questions were put to them. Imagine their consternation when they find that when he gave such sound advice to this House the Simon Pure in these matters has himself fallen from grace, and he is in the position now of the physician who says, "Do not do as I do but do as I tell you." The Prime Minister is now doing that which he warned my right hon. Friend not to do, and he has given a pledge more disastrous than anything the Leader of the Opposition gave concerning the ex-ranker officer. In the pledge the right hon. Gentleman gave he abrogated the promise already given by the Government, and committed this House to things so far-reaching that in spite of the pressure that will be put upon them, it will be found that it has opened up an era of corruption unknown in the Civil Service for the last fifty years. The Prime Minister in answering, the question against which he warned us said:
I am glad to be able to give you the following assurances on the question of ex-service men employed in the Civil Service, to which effect will be given in the event of the party being returned to power.

(1) The forthcoming examination for ex- service men temporarily employed in the Civil Service would be suspended until such time as the party should have examined the Reports of the Southborough Committee, and afforded the House an opportunity of discussing any action proposed to be taken upon them.
(2) The party is, generally speaking, in favour of the absorption of competent ex-service temporaries in appropriate positions in the permanent service in preference to the admission of entrants from outside but without prejudice to the rights of permanent civil servants who served in the War.
(3) The party would afford your association an opportunity of expressing the views of the men concerned at any party conference which may hereafter consider the matter."

That is a very definite pledge which I submit no party leader has any right to
give. It is a pledge which interferes so seriously with the Civil Service that it amounts to an absolute abuse of power Over and above that, I say that in the agreement and the action taken by the present Government even the promises made have not been carried out. We were promised that before anything was done there would be a full discussion in this House on the Southborough Report, and there has been no such discussion, and if the agreement goes forward that promise will not be given effect to. This action very seriously affects the permanent Civil Service because it lowers the whole status and introduces a principle that has never been introduced before. Although I have brought forward the questionnaire of the Prime Minister—as I have a right to do—having regard to his attitude towards the Leader of tie Opposition during the last Parliament, I do not believe he gave that pledge being fully aware of all the facts. I believe that he was deceived both as to the representative authority of the people with whom he made the bargain and the whole of what was likely to flow from any such agreement. My connection with the Civil Service has been a very long one, but I do not remember anything that has so spread the spirit of revolt as this particular action from the highest position to the lowest in the Civil Service. If this is allowed to stand, it will set such a precedent with regard to tampering with and corrupting the Civil Service that it is likely to lead to disaster, and it will bring down the Civil Service from that proud eminence and prestige to which it has attained in the past to a very low level indeed.
There is an organ published, not by one of the trade unions or any of the lower grades of the Civil Service. It has nothing to do with politics, and it is published by the administrative and executive officers of the Civil Service. This organ is called "Civil Service Opinion," and in the issue for February last they comment very strongly on the agreement which has recently been concluded, and which was referred to in the letter from the Prime Minister. At the risk of wearying the House, I will quote a somewhat lengthy extract from the leading article that was published in "Civil
Service Opinion" in February last. It says:
A 'settlement' which ignores the two parties concerned on the staff side by conveniently elevating a small but very noisy section to the dignity of a high contracting party is no settlement at all; it is an attempted imposition. The thing is an outrage, and would for many a long day to come destroy the confidence of the staff in the honour of their administrative chiefs at the Treasury, if it were certain that those chiefs were responsible for the tactics to which resort was necessary in order to cover so complete a change of policy. But it is not by any means certain that the blame rests with the permanent administration; considerable significance is, we think, to be attached to the reports stressing the part played in the affair by Colonel Guinness, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Everyone knows what happened in this connection during last year's General Election, and the memorandum probably represents a promise to pay the agreed price. And what a paltry price from the point of view of the intended beneficiaries! Unestablished permanency on 'temporary' rates of pay! and the satisfaction, if any, of knowing that they have been used, not without disadvantage to themselves, to strike a treacherous blow at the permanent service! The Southborough Report, it will be remembered, proposed the eventual establishment on the Clerical Class of all temporaries qualifying at a simple examination, the remainder to be employed in a temporary capacity so long as work remained. The Government scheme includes the first provision, but substitutes for the second a proposal that from the remainder shall be selected for permanent non-pensionable employment either 8,000 or as many as will, with those qualifying at the examination snake up a total of 12,900, whichever is the greater. This, of course, would mean permanency, on one basis or the other, for the whole of the present total of 21,500 temporaries, if 13,500 or more of them were to qualify; but that would be so much the worse for those of the 13,500 who had to await their appointments—it might be for years, it might be for ever—because 8,000 admittedly permanent clerical posts were 'blocked' against them by low-paid unestablished people.
I again repeat that the importance and value of this is that it is not an organ published in the interests of the manipulative grades or of the lower grades, but is an organ published in the interests of the administrative and executive officers of the Civil Service as a whole. From the highest administrative chiefs right down to the humblest members of the Civil Service, there is wholesale condemnation of this scheme which has been put through. It is not that these higher officials are threatened in any way; it is because they are concerned for the
integrity, the status and the high standard which our Civil Service has always attained, and which is now threatened. What does this scheme do in effect? I want, first of all, to call attention to the unrepresentative character of the association with which the agreement was made. It does a grave injustice to the established civil servants and -ex-service men, and it violates agreements and lowers the standard of the Civil Service. If it were done with a full knowledge of the facts, it is one of the biggest pieces of political corruption that has been known for many years. I should point out, in connection with the unrepresentative character of the association, that for the figures which they have given to the right hon. Gentleman, and upon which, as I see from his letter which I have here, he seems to rest, there is, in fact, no basis. At the very most, their members amount to 7,200, and this association has a very unsavoury reputation as regards the manner in which it has deceived both the Civil Service and other people. At one time it was affiliated to the Civil Service Confederation, with an alleged membership of 20,000. Its actual membership at that moment was only 9,750; and it has adopted precisely that line all along. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know my authority for my figures I will give it, and I want to remind him that he cannot accept these figures in one connection and disregard them in another. My authority is the Report of the Registrar-General of Friendly Societies, and these figures must be accepted as official figures. They would be demanded and accepted in connection with any other trade union, and, as I have said, they do not support in any manner whatever the statement made by this association. The agreement, therefore, was reached with an association representing little more than 7,000 ex-service men, as against over 100,000 ex-service men in the other organisations.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: Can the hon. Member say to what year the figures he has given relate?

Mr. AMMON: My figures are for the present year, but I can give them in detail. They are the official registered figures. According to the returns of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, the mem-
bership of the Association of Ex-service Men was as follows:


1920
…
…
…
…
6,413


1921
…
…
…
…
12,527


1922
…
…
…
…
11,718


1923
…
…
…
…
9,771


For the present year, as estimated by their own balance-sheet, it is just over 7,000.

Captain WATERHOUSE: 19,000 is their present figure, as given by their own secretary.

Mr. AMMON: As I have already indicated, the official figures given by that organisation can never be accepted. We can only accept the figures of the Registrar-General, and we have no right to accept any figure that anyone else likes to suggest other than those which are on record and those which are shown in their own balance-sheet. I should also point out, with regard to their unrepresentative character, that there has grown up in the Civil Service the practice of Whitleyism, and a method of representing grievances in a way that has worked quite harmoniously and has been of advantage to the Civil Service of the country and to this House. I may remind some hon. Members who have been hero long enough to recollect it, that before the War whole days used to be taken up in the House discussing the petty grievances of Post Office servants and other civil servants, and very little other work was done on the Estimates than that. It used to be my duty then, in another capacity, to prime Members for that sort of work, and one used to see, in those days, Members of Parliament rising from all over the House to pro test against the waste of Parliamentary time in that way, and asking that some other method might be found. As a result of the growth of the associations, and the establishment of Whitleyism, that has been entirely removed from the Floor of the House. If this sort of thing is to go on, we shall again be flooded out by discussion of that kind, the proper work of Parliament will be lost, and we shall again have a rising volume of discontent in the Service, which is bound to reflect itself in the efficiency of the Service itself.
These associations, which have always been consulted, and which the Treasury have in the past always insisted should
come in to discuss these matters, have been entirely ignored in this matter. The Whitley Council was not even consulted, nor was any consideration given to it whatever. That, surely, does indicate the unrepresentative character to which I have referred; but I want hon. Members to look at this matter from another point of view. There seems to be some idea that, when you are talking of these temporary ex-service men, you are talking of them as against men who are not ex-service men. But almost the whole of the Civil Service are ex-service men. Among the first to go were the civil servants, and 80,000 went from the Post Office alone at the first call. I want to remind the Committee that these people, unlike many others, did not wait for compulsion to come, but went at once, and what happened was that it was not the civil servants who were not ex-service men, but other people, who flowed into the service afterwards, and carried on the work there while the civil servants proper were away. When action like this is taken, it is to be remembered that it is aiming a blow at the 100 odd thousand men who went out. Over 100,000 men went out from the Civil Service, and now, through the action of 7,000 people, you are going to damnify the whole position and lower the tone of the Civil Service. I hope that some consideration will be given to that in this connection.
I should like to call attention to one particular case. I have here an extract from a letter written to this particular association by a civil servant, who is a member of the manipulative grades. He says:
We put the position to them
that is to say, the ex-service men—
in this manner: 'Your agitation for all the clerical posts in the Civil Service is cutting right across men of the minor grades, who, also ex-service men, look to these jobs as promotion, carrying, as they do, better pay and conditions. Many of us have given lengthy service to the Government, and, surely, therefore have some title to consideration.'
The "Civilian," writing on the 16th February of last year, said:
The more recent methods of making appointments to the clerical classes have severely penalised the established civil servant of subordinate grades. He has had the mortification of seeing superior posts given to others, whose general educational
and clerical qualifications—and, in many cases, war service—were far less than his own, by means of an examination for which he was not allowed to sit.
The other thing is that, as will be remembered, it violates the existing agreements that have been made with the general organisations with regard to the position of their members, the safeguarding of the right of promotion for the ex-manipulative grades, and as regards examinations and so on. All these people have been people who have done their bit with the Colours, and are temporary ex-service men themselves. I will quote now an extract from the evidence given before the Southborough Committee by one of the highest administrative chiefs in one of the Civil Service Departments, bearing upon this particular question of the lowering of opportunities for the manipulative grades, and also the lowering of the educational qualifications of the Civil Service itself. He said:
Unfortunately, however, it had been necessary, owing to the employment of temporary ex-service men against London vacancies, to offer many of the successful ex-manipulative appointments in the Provinces … He agreed that their [the ex-manipulatives] claims were as strong, if not stronger, than those of the temporary staffs, and he pointed out that, of qualified candidates at the recent competition, 90 per cent. were ex-service men. Successful candidates entered the scale laid down for the clerical staff at the rate of pay of which they were in receipt prior to appointment … It was unsafe to draw any particular deduction from this result, except, possibly, that the older men had given more time to studying in the past … If the demand of the ex-service men that all clerical vacancies should be reserved for them were acceded to, the efficiency of the service would be affected. The efficiency of the ex-manipulatives was higher than that of the ex-service men appointed as a result of the recent competition.
Another distinguished civil servant, also the chief administrative official of a Government Department, said:
It was very important that some return to the system of open competition should be made at the earliest opportunity. The Royal Commission laid down that, where clerical work was admittedly of a permanent character, it should be performed by established civil servants.
That is evidence from unimpeachable sources among the men whose duty it is to carry on the Government of this country, and who are themselves considerably alarmed at the lowering of the status and quality of the Civil Service
that has come about during recent years; and they are more alarmed at the possibility of an even further lowering as the result of this scheme. Surely, the House of Commons will be right in giving some heed to the utterances of people holding such positions, for, when they take that line, we may be certain that the position is really a very serious one indeed. Then I want also to call attention to the fact that the lowering of the educational standard is very serious, and in this regard I want to give yet another quotation. I would remind the Committee that I am quoting no fewer than three administrative chiefs. I am not mentioning their Departments, for obvious reasons, but I can supply the names to the right hen. Gentleman if he wants them. All of these three administrative chiefs, as the result of their own experience, condemn this position. This is what another of them says, speaking of the quality as revealed by a recent limited examination laid down in the Southborough Report:
While in some instances the answers had been extremely good, in many they had been very bad, and the general standard of performance was distinctly low. In many cases the answers to questions had not comprised more than six or seven lines, and it was felt that men who were unable to do better than this could not be regarded as fit for appointment to a grade carrying a salary rising to a basic rate of £250 per annum plus bonus. Ample notice had been given by the Department of the examination, and the system of marking had been on a generous basis. Out of the 1,650 candidates, 1,000 had failed to obtain 47 marks out of 120, and 330 only had obtained more than 50 per cent. The suggestion that security of tenure on an unestablished basis should be accorded in lieu of establishment was extremely objectionable. While at the moment ex-service men might contend that their claims could be met in such a manner, there was no doubt that in a few years they would become thoroughly dissatisfied and would demand establishment. It would then be difficult to resist their demand.
I want also to call attention to what is going to be the position with regard to those who are already in the Service. It is perhaps well to remember the history of this case. It was foreseen that after the War they would have to deal with a large number of ex-service men who were on the temporary staff and that means would have to be taken for the possibility of the admission of suitable members to the establishment and the question of the order in which the staff
became redundant would have to be considered. To meet that problem a Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Ramsay, and he reported, inter alia, that certain prescribed opportunities should be provided for temporary staffs to secure permanency and that the order of dispersal of temporary staffs should be made along lines which would give priority of retention to efficient ex-service men. That policy did not meet the whole case. Later there came other movements and agitations which resulted in the setting up of a Committee under Lord Lytton, which recommended, among other things, the introduction into the temporary service of large numbers of ex-service men to provide vacancies for whom women and non-service personnel were displaced, the provision of means for entry into the established classes for ex-service men and the fixation for successful candidates of points of assimilation in she permanent scales of rates of pay. That was the claim put forward. That again did not solve the question of the temporary civil servants. Then we had the Southborough Committee. They reported that other interests were involved and other associations existed which were representative in a greater degree than the Association of Ex-Civil Servants and that the general question of the establishment of temporary staffs was about to be made the subject of negotiation by the general organisations.
I now ask the House to consider the position we are brought up against at present. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury wrote a letter in connection with this case in which he tried to define the position. The first point he made was that this Association was fully representative. If he stands by that point I think, now the figures have been put to him, he will find he is on very unstable ground, that they represent quite a minority, that they cannot speak for the Service as a whole, that there is a large number of ex-service men who will be adversely affected, and they are up against this agreement all the way through. "The agreement is in no wise prejudicial to the interests of established civil servants." I cannot do better than I have done in quoting the opinion of the administrative chiefs of the different Departments of the Civil Service and the opinion of a large body of men in the Service itself. He also
said in his letter that it would give employment to a large number of temporary employés equally as much as the Southborough Committee. It will do nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact it will employ a less number of men under this scheme than that laid down under the Southborough Committtee itself, and what is more, by setting up this large army, to use a Civil Service phrase, of temporary hands permanently employed it will close up avenues on the establishment which will block the further advance of the manipulative grades, who have a right to look forward to this as a legitimate avenue of promotion as the standard of education has been proved to be so low by these people as compared with those already in the Service that the Service is suffering considerably at present.
One other point I want to make from the political point of view. I have made the statement, and it cannot be contradicted, that this agreement which has been entered into, if carried out, has opened up a precedent for dealing with the Civil Service which is going to be extremely dangerous in the days to come. It is one of the most corrupt agreements that has ever been made. It has been made without consultation with all the classes referred to. It has dealt with a policy which should have come before the House as a whole. The whole Civil Service has simply been made a pawn in the political game, and some people have had a price given them for certain services rendered during the General Election. As one who has had a lifetime of association with the Civil Service I want to say that is to be very much deplored, and if a precedent of that character is going to be established, there is no saying how far-reaching it is going to be and what will be the effect in days to come. Although it might be quite right to say one should not follow a bad example, yet one always knows, human nature being what it is, that if there is an advantage to be gained and you can point out that your opponents have done it, other parties may not be very slow to follow it up when an opportunity presents itself. With this, and with the fact that the whole of the Civil Service—not a section, not a few people, but right from the highest officials down to the humblest—are united in condemning this in the interests of the Service itself, and
that by this policy you are going to give a few people who, I admit, rendered efficient service to the party opposite during the Election, an advantage at the expense of all the other ex-service men in the Civil Service, it is going to raise problems for this House and for the country which will not be settled if and when this House decides to confirm the agreement entered into under circumstances that do no credit either to the contracting parties or to the Government itself.

Captain FRASER: The hon. Gentle man has severely indicted the, Prime Minister for having given a pledge which he claims is almost unconstitutional and is out of order. I suggest that the Leader of a party is entitled to give whatever pledges he pleases, provided he feels fairly confident that his party will follow him when a difficulty arises and the time comes. Towards the close of his remarks the hon. Gentleman mentioned one of the main criticisms which have been levelled against this agreement. He said it was not in fact so advantageous to the ex-service civil servants as some other agreement might have been. May I, therefore, examine what were the conditions under the Southborough Report and what are the conditions under this agreement I Paragraph 14 of the Southborough Report provided that some 5,000 ex-service civil servants might have another opportunity of obtaining established positions provided they passed an examination. This new agreement provides that all who pass an examination will qualify for established posts, and, further, that not less than 8,000 shall come on to this special class where they will get permanent employment but not pensions, and further still that certain special cases amongst those 8,000 permanent but non-pensioned men may progress on to the establishment, where they will get permanencies and pensions on the recommendation of their Departmental head and without examination. The principle that a competent employé who has served you well for a number of years should be employed on that account without subjecting him to examination at an age when examinations are not usual and are rather stupid was thus admitted, and I am glad it was.
The second criticism which the hon. Gentleman brought forward, and which
one has heard and read before in many documents some of us have had, was that this Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants is not representative of the people concerned in this trouble. It is alleged that there are 100,000 ex-service men outside the association who do not agree with the stand that has been made by the association, and it is suggested that this association stands in the position of 7,000 to 100,000. If there are 100,000 men, they are not men who in any way compete with the clerks whose difficulties are now under discussion. They are manipulative grades in whom he has a special interest, and rightly so, and they are not men who will in any way be prejudiced by the privilege which has been given to the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the concluding paragraph of an article written by a certain Mr. Middleton, who, I fancy, is a friend of his, and who, I think, is an officer of the Post Office Workers' Union, in which, dealing kith the complaints which had been and would be made by various sections in the Service against the agreement, he said, dealing with the manipulative workers' complaint, that these men have no cause for complaint, for they could not have looked to the Southborough Commmittee to do anything for them, and if anyone was affected or displaced by the privilege to be given to these ex-service men it would be the boys and girls of the next generation. Mr. Middleton may be right or wrong, but I fancy he and the hon. Gentleman are closely associated.
8.0 P.M.
While dealing with the question of the representative character of this association I have made close personal inquiries into the figures, which have not only been mentioned to-night, but have been circulated with various documents which we have received, to search out and find what evidence there was on both sides. I have in my possession an interesting document. It is a receipt from a confederation to which were affiliated all the associations who are now concerned in this dispute on both sides—the Confederation of the Temporary Staffs Association. It is a receipt which shows that the sum of £125 was received by the confederation in 1922 from the Associations of Ex-Service Civil Servants, being a levy at the rate of 1½d. per head of their membership. A simple
sum will show that was paid on a membership of 20,000. If it were a wrong membership, I have only to say that the other parties in this confederation seemed quite willing to receive the money and acknowledge it.

Mr. AMMON: Those figures which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just given, he will remember, I quoted myself, and it was not known until the information appeared in the Registrar-General's Report exactly what were those figures.

Captain FRASER: Six months ago this confederation was meeting together to discuss a matter on common ground—namely, wages and such conditions—and then the Treasury made an inquiry as to what was the number of persons represented by those various associations. The figures returned were, I understand, agreed by all sides, and they show that, out of 21,300, I think it was, who were represented by the delegates at the Conference, no less than 17,900, I believe, were of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. Looking further for evidence of this matter, I find—in fact, I know, from personal observation—that at least some thousands of ex-service civil servants are interested in this association, because I had the privilege of attending, not very long ago, a meeting at which they were present. On the other hand, we were told upstairs in Committee that a similar meeting has been held by the other side, and they claim that they have many thousands of ex-service men in their ranks. I am now not referring to the Post Office workers, who, I have explained, do not come into this at all. I am referring to the remaining associations, representing temporary workers, and who, it appears, represent some 3,000 people. One can only say from reports of that meeting, where many thousands of ex-service men who are opposed to this agreement are alleged to have been present, there appear to have been a good many on both sides on that occasion.
Dealing further with the representative character of this association, nobody claims that this trade union, as it is, represents all ex-service temporaries. I do not believe there is an hon. Member in this House on either side who could point to any instance in which a trade, union represented all the workers in any trade. But this much seems certain to anyone who examines the matter, that this
association does, in fact, represent a preponderating proportion of such opinion as cares to be organised, and one must bear in mind that in any group there are always some who choose to stand out of organised bodies of any sort. When the representative character of this association is challenged—and I hope the House will forgive my dealing with this matter at such length; it is, I think, one of the main arguments my hon. Friend has put up—when it is challenged, it is a little interesting to remember that his friend the late Financial Secretary not only recognised this association, but endeavoured to conclude an agreement with them.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I must apologise to my hon. and gallant Friend, but that is not so. The position which this association occupied was merely one of many bodies making representation to the Treasury, but no separate agreement was ever concluded with them.

Captain FRASER: I did not say that a separate agreement was concluded; I said the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to arrive at an agreement with them. At any rate, as I understand, every Government for the last few years has negotiated with these people. I would submit one other point before passing on to other criticism, and it is this. I do not think anyone in this House criticised the suggestion, and I think the country was largely in agreement with the suggestion, made by the Government before the last Election, that they should call a conference to deal with agricultural matters, in which they hoped to secure the assistance of agricultural trade unions, who, I believe, represent a very small proportion of agricultural workers. Yet it was not considered that they were unrepresentative or unimportant. The Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants stands in better case as compared with the agricultural trade unions so far as the proportion of the men whom they represent are concerned.
The third subject of criticism seems to me to be that this agreement is improper, and that, even if the ex-service men who are outside this Association are small in number, they should, nevertheless, have been consulted. On the admission of the associations who are ranged against this
agreement, the ex-service men within their ranks are in a minority. Then, in a manifesto, which was recently sent to members of this House—I refer to No. 6 of a document which was sent round to us quite recently by the four or five associations who are opposed to this Agreement—there is a clause something like this: The ex-service question must no longer be regarded as an issue to be treated separately from the general question of providing opportunities for temporary staffs to secure permanent employment on the establishment. I do not quote exactly, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that that is fairly accurate. Here we have a case, in which the great majority of members in this House are agreed that some special privilege should be given to ex-service men as such; in which public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of that course; in which here is an association or a group of associations—I refer to those who are in opposition to the agreement—purporting to represent ex-service opinion, and who issue a manifesto in which such a clause appeared.
I submit that those who are opposed to this agreement do not in any sense whatever represent ex-service opinion in the Service, and, moreover, it is because they do riot represent it, and because they have put forward the view that the time has now come when the ex-service men's case should no longer be considered a special one, that the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants was formed, and made such a gallant stand for what it conceived to be its rights. There is one more point on which I want to touch in relation to this agreement, and it is a point not of criticism, but of personal disappointment. I am disappointed that the ex-service women were not catered for. I believe the ex-service men and the ex-service women are mutually agreed as to the desirability of supporting each other in their efforts to get the preference which they have been promised, and I hope the Financial Secretary may see his way to do something which will give to them the same advantages as the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants have secured for the men.
There is one other matter about which I am a little disappointed, and that is that this agreement does not, apparently, bring within its scope a not very large number of blind soldiers who are employed in Government offices. Those
men, I believe, are assured of permanent employment, because Government after Government has said that they will be all right. But while we have taken that assurance—and quite properly taken it—in the past, we are now faced with the position in which some 8,000 men are promised permanent situations. The Minister does not say to those ex-service men, "I hope you will have permanent service," but that they "shall have it." I hope he will say that our men "shall have it," and not that he "hopes they will have it."
I want to offer one or two concluding remarks in reference to the really serious main issue, which, I think, is brought forward by the attitude of His Majesty's Opposition in regard to this matter. They appear to desire to deny ex-service men some special privilege in the matter of employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, the association which they support says in black and white that it is no longer necessary for their case to be considered as a separate case outside the general settlement of temporary staffs' employment. If they do riot agree with it—I know there are a large number who deny it—apparently they are going to support an association which seeks to deny to a group of ex-service men some degree of preference. I believe the Government are in favour of such a preference, and I must say it makes one feel that one cannot help being in extraordinary opposition to right hon. and hon. Members, when one knows that amongst those who range themselves against this preference to ex-service men, are some who not merely could not serve their country because of circumstances beyond their control, but deliberately chose not to do so, and who did more, and went out of their way to hinder those who did endeavour to do their duty.
My hon. Friend dealt at great length with one other aspect of this matter, namely, the harm which would be done to the Civil Service. If the support which he and his friends give to the association ranged against the ex-service men is altruistic—and I am inclined to believe a large proportion of it is seriously concerned with the welfare of the Civil Service as a whole—so far as that part of his case, that it is going to harm the Service, is concerned, I submit it will hurt the Civil Service and the State very much
more to deny what the State is asking employers to give, and to stick to its traditions and its red tape If, on the other hand, some part of this feeling is due to the fear that personal positions may be prejudiced, I have already dealt with the manipulative workers, who are not concerned, according to Mr. Middleton. As far as the clerks are concerned, there is no competition with the women. As far as the men clerks are concerned, I submit that they will not be the only people who will have had to make some small sacrifice in order that ex-service men may have a preference.

Mr. HAYES: The speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant Member exhibits a very sincere interest in the ex-service men in the Civil Service. No one on these benches will challenge his sincerity on that matter, but, having said that, it does not mean that hon. Members on these benches, or hon. Members on any benches, must deny themselves the right to express a point of view which may be contrary to that of the hon. and gallant Member. I only wish to refer to his opening and closing remarks, before I proceed to other matters. With regard to the allegation made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) that the settlement had been in the nature of a political job, the hon. and gallant Member almost endorsed the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I assume that the hon. and gallant Member did know a good deal of the settlement that was arrived at, and ho practically endorses the suggestion or allegation made, when he said that he felt that any party that could be assured that its membership would be behind it in giving the pledge that it gave, would have a perfect right to give that pledge, apparently, regardless as to whether it interfered with the standard of morality that had hitherto been accepted in the principles of government.
The final comment which the hon. and gallant Member made, had relationship to the feeling of the civil servant who might be an ex-service man, or particularly the civil servant who was a non-service man, and that that type of civil servant was really opposed to the welfare of the ex-service temporary who had come into the Civil Service. I do not think there is the slightest justification for developing that impression. On the con-
trary, the make-up of the Civil Service is as patriotic and as keenly interested in the welfare of our unfortunate ex-service men as any other section of the community. But it should be remembered that the ex-service man of to-day will, if events during recent years are anything to go by, very soon be forgotten as an ex-service man, and will become, to all intents and purposes, from the employers' point of view, a non-service man, because the War will be forgotten as far as his economic value is concerned.
When the ex-service man in the Civil Service has proceeded under the conditions which this new agreement is establishing, he will begin to recognise that all the talk with regard to giving preferential treatment to ex-service men has really been, in fact, preferential treatment which has been to his disadvantage, because he is to be treated in a far less favourable light than the non-service Civil Servant who has pensionable status. The hon. and gallant Member believes that he is doing his very best for the ex-service man in question, and possibly in the Debate that will ensue we shall discover various points of view, but no one will be able to prove their case definitely to the satisfaction of the House to-night That will strengthen the appeal that is coming from these benches that this is a matter that should be referred to the cool, calm judgment of the Committee room, to people who will examine the pros and cons of the whole arrangement that has been made, the atmosphere in which it was entered into and the results of the application of the agreement, and report back to the House in order that there should be no lasting feeling on either side that an injustice has been done either to the ex-service temporary, the ex-service permanent, or the non-service Civil Servant.
I do not think that the Government is very sincere about this question of the new agreement being in favour of the ex-service man. If the Government, and particularly the Treasury, feel that this agreement is meting out justice to the ex-service man, it will be very difficult for them to get away from the fact that they have denied to this type of ex-service man entry into the established and pensionable class; that they have deliberately shut him off from the benefits
of ordinary Civil Service employment, and that they have placed him in a position that when he reaches the evening of his days he is to be cut off with a small gratuity. He is to be told that he cannot have a pension. I hope the Government does not feel that between now and those days it is going to have comfortable political nights, for the very simple reason that that class of ex-service man is bound to agitate until he gets put upon a similar status to that of the ordinary civil servant. I say, frankly, while I oppose this agreement, that the ex-service men who accept this agreement would be foolish in the extreme if they accept it as being final in its application. I would always join with them in getting that bar removed and in their agitating to be put upon the status that is enjoyed by the Civil Service as a whole.
This agreement seems to me to have been a move by the Government to throw open some kind of door and to invite these ex-service men to go through the door, partly pushed by the fear that their economic position is being jeopardised. When they have entered the door, the Government has closed it and put over the door the motto, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here, so far as pensions are concerned." When they have spent their days they will go out by another door, and all the roads will lead to the workhouse, as far as the unestablished civil servant is concerned.
I would never challenge the sympathy of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the ex-service man, but, unfortunately, we have known of other wars where there have been changes in the status of civil servants, and cases have again and again been referred to various Departments showing the injustice to the old-time pensioner as compared with the present day pensioner. May I be allowed to refer to the difference between the attitude of the Conservative Government in 1925 and of the Conservative Government in 1923? If the Conservative party, not as a Government but as a party, is really sincere in its desire to do justice to the ex-service man, it is well to remember that from the Treasury itself of the Conservative Government in 1923, there emanated a letter by one of the hon. and gallant Member's predecessors, which read in these terms:
I am aware that some of the men concerned"—
this was in reference to ex-service men on whose behalf a good deal of agitation was going on in order to see that justice was done to them—
find it difficult to make ends meet, but I am forced to the conclusion, comparing the conditions of their employment as a whole with what is prevailing outside, that the increase of the present rate cannot in existing circumstances be justified. I agree with my predecessor that in this matter we, who are administering not our own, but public funds, cannot mete out justice as we should like.
The Conservative party in 1923 admitted that they could not mete out justice as they would like. I sincerely hope that they will not regard the agreement as meting out justice. To-night there is a very excellent opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his colleagues of meting out justice to these ex-service men and putting them in a not less favourable position than any other civil servants in the country. That is the appeal which I would make to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that other speakers will say that all this has arisen because there has been jealousy between those organisations which are acting for the various forms of civil servants, that this is going to be a question of an inter-union dispute. There would have been no question of any dispute between organisations if the machinery for conciliation, the Whitley Council machinery, in the Civil Service had had an opportunity of dealing with this matter.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): There would have been no agreement either.

Mr. HAYES: So we are discussing an agreement which has never existed.

Mr. GUINNESS: In your conditions there probably would have been no agreement.

Mr. HAYES: I believe that it would have ben far better for these ex-service men if there had been no agreement. No one would be more delighted than I if the right hon. Gentleman can show that this agreement is going to be more advantageous to the ex-service men than if there had been no agreement at all. This agreement has merely placed the ex-service men in a less favourable position and he will desire that his standard of life shall be equal to that of other civil servants, and if this agreement is to be
used for the purpose of breaking down the established standards it is not merely a question of breaking down these standards alone, but as a result of interfering with the standards which exist you will create a new class, and discontent is bound to ensue throughout the Civil Service. It seems a great pity that we should have introduced into the Civil Service the employment of responsible people, as they will have to be, who are to be all of a non-pensionable character.
Last year, when the Labour Government was dealing with the question of legislation to bring the pensions of State servants more into line with present-day conditions, I recollect very well the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for War, from this side of the House pointing the accusing finger, as perhaps I did, too, at the right hon. Gentleman who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the last Government, and with the accusing finger came words to this effect, "This Measure of the Labour Government is an act of cowardice. It does not give to these old people that which the country wants them to have. It makes the old people despair of raising their standard of comfort," and so on. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to convince his own colleagues now in the Cabinet that what was an act of cowardice on the part of the Labour Government can be no less an act of cowardice on the part -of the Conservative Government if they will not alter the conditions. Therefore, while their legislation did endeavour to improve existing pensions, this new agreement, by the Government which charged that Government with an act of cowardice, does create a class which is not going to have any pension at all.
Most of these ex-service men were, no doubt, physically below the standard of health that has been enjoyed by the average civil servant in times gone by, and will not be able, unfortunately, to reach the old age that many civil servants have reached, and in many cases it will mean that, owing to the privations of war and their lower standard of health, they will be compelled to leave the Civil Service long before the age of 60 or 65 years is reached. The consequence is that they will be going out of the Civil Service without any pension, with merely a gratuity, and that Members of Parlia-
ment in another 20 or 30 years will be badgered, more even than they are to-day, with pitiful letters from ex-civil servants who will be giving the history of all their service to the country, and the efforts that were made on their behalf in the House of Commons, and there will be legislation asked for in days to come to keep these men out of the workhouse.
It is not an unreasonable appeal which we are making. We are not appealing to the House either to reject the agreement or to accept it. Our appeal is merely that the Government will co-operate with us in appointing some kind of a committee that will inquire into the pros and cons of this question, and report back to this House and reinstate the authority of Parliament, seeing that the Report of the Southborough Committee, with certain items of improvement, was accepted by Parliament as a settlement in the Civil Service up to a point which gave more satisfaction than the present agreement would give. While the present agreement may give some satisfaction to the Conservative party, I am equally confident that the advisers of the right hon. Gentleman do not feel as happy as they will tell the House to-night that they are, but they will be doing the right thing, if they give us the inquiry for which we ask.

Mr. CASSELS: I may be allowed at the outset of my observations to express from this side of the House congratulations to the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) for the excellent speech in which he dealt with this subject. He speaks with profound knowledge of the conditions of the ex-service men, and he has defended the case of the ex-service man in this matter with a skill which we must all admire. I have listened to the two speeches which have been made in criticism of this agreement, and the effect of these speeches is to present a most dismal view of the future. So far as I can see from the introductory speech upon this subject, the whole of the Civil Service, with its 300,000 members, is about to come tottering to the ground because the Government have been so stupid as to make a reasonable agreement with these ex-service temporary civil servants, and according to the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) the ex-service civil servant, by the agreement which has been made, is going to
have a very horrible future, and it would be better for him to get out of the Civil Service into the ranks of the unemployed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. HAYES: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not wish to misrepresent the spirit of my remarks. What I suggested was that the Government might on this point take these men out of the status which has been created for them, and put them into a far better status and give them that better treatment which we want them to have.

Mr. CASSELS: I accept the correction of the hon Member, but I would ask him to consider one other point which was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) when he suggested that this was a bad thing for the rest of the Civil Service. I hope that this agreement will be allowed to stand. I have heard nothing in either of the two speeches which would show that this was not a proper agreement to make from the point of view of the ex-service temporary civil servant. This agreement removes anxiety in thousands of homes where there has been present always the fear of dismissal from a temporary job. This agreement meets with the approval of those for whose benefit it was made. It is a very proper agreement, and, further, it brings to an end a controversy which has been going on for a very long time. It is for the benefit of those men who, from the fact of their service during the War, deserve extremely well of the country. Moreover, if you get a guarantee, as this agreement gives it, of 13,000 permanencies; if, in addition to that, you get some kind of undertaking, which this agreement gives, that there shall be the best consideration given to to remainder of the 21,500 men who are much concerned in this matter, that their jobs shall last as long as possible; I say that those two facts provide something which will be welcome to the other 20,000 men who are concerned. But, no!
It is said now that you must put the whole of this matter into the melting pot once more; there must be further inquiries, further negotiations, another Committee, another name to be added to the names of Lytton and Southborough, who have already made part of the history in this long drawn-out controversy, and then you will get another Report, more recommendations, more
debate and discussion in this House, and where now we have satisfaction you will probably have substituted for it dissatisfaction and grievance. I suggest that the proper thing to do is to allow this agreement to stand. We want no more inquiries into this matter, and the ex-service temporary civil servant wants no more inquiry; he wants to get security of tenure, and when he gets that he will be perfectly satisfied. It is said that this takes away from some of the things which have been provided for by the Southborough Report. When I come to compare the two documents and to analyse their contents, and put the Southborough Report on the one hand against the agreement on the other hand, I find that the greater benefits are to be obtained from the agreement, from the point of view of the ex-service temporary civil servant.
One point is that under the Southborough Report there was to be at a certain date an examination. The agreement provides that that date shall be extended. Another point that is made is that the Southborough Report provides for 5,000 permanencies. This agreement provides for 13,000. Another point is that the Southborough Committee said that their recommendations were final; the word "finality" was used in the Report. The agreement contains no such word, and no such suggestion is made. By this agreement you are going to have created, it is true, a new class of permanency without pension rights but with the benefit of the Superannuation Acts for at least 8,000 of these ex-service temporary civil servants who are to be selected departmentally, to whom preference is to be shown if they are disabled or if they have seen service overseas—a thing which is of enormous importance and in keeping with the feeling of the country upon this matter. And these men are to be eligible for permanencies which would be pensionable. The Southborough Report contains no provision which deals with such a position as that. Then, of course, there will be some of these temporary men who will fail in the examination. There will be some who will not be selected, perhaps, by their Departmental Chiefs for the particular position that happens to be vacant. From those classes there will be selected, to fill the vacancies which have occurred, at least one-third of the
men required. Once more the Southborough Committee's Report contains no such provision.
Then there are the messengers. There is a largo number of non-established messengers in the employment of the Civil Service. The Southborough Report contains no provision for them. This agreement provides that 75 per cent. of these men are to be given permanencies. Therefore, I suggest that there is much to be said for this agreement from the point of view of the ex-service man. It is said that this agreement is an interference with the permanent servant I do not know whether it is going to be suggested that there is anybody at the present moment permanently established in the Civil Service who is likely to lose his job by reason of this agreement. it is, perhaps, said that it will interfere with the prospects of advancement for those who are already in the Service. I disagree with that view. Considering the many advantages of this particular scheme for temporary ex-service civil servants, it is difficult to see why the prospects for advancement are to be interfered with in the case of those who are permanently established. Then it is said that those people who are in the minor manipulative grades of the Post Office will have no opportunity of obtaining that advancement to which they naturally look in order to better their position. But that is a matter which is not entirely settled. At present there is sitting a committee which is considering as well as it can the position of the Post Office workers who are to be secured advancement and are to better their positions by passing into other grades, and upon that committee the men are very adequately represented. So that it is difficult to understand why that criticism should be made upon this agreement.
It is said by those who criticise the agreement that it has been secured by the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants, about whom it is impossible to say anything too bad. We have heard figures given to-night. As one listened to those figures one came to the conclusion that there must be some mistake about them. I do not know how they are arrived at, whether by taking a certain sum of money and dividing it by the subscription which is supposed to be paid, without any regard for any subscriptions which may be in arrear, or, perhaps, subscriptions
half paid, or anything of that kind. All that I can do is to give to the House some figures which have been supplied by this association, whose officials seem never to tell the truth—figures supplied from the branches. If my figures are wrong there would seem to be employed in the Civil Service an extraordinarily large number of people who are concerned to tell the same untruth. I find that in the Admiralty there are 763 members of this association, in the Air Ministry, 684, in the Customs and Excise, 410, in the Board of Education, 298, General Post Office, 353, Office of Works, 479, Ministry of Health, 417, Inland Revenue, 1,210, Ministry of Health, 2,256, Ministry of Pensions, 7,874, Board of Trade, 1,410, War Office, 470. I have given only the figures over 400. In many other Departments you will also find a considerable number in the membership of the particular branch concerned, and the total membership of this association is 18,792. So far as that is concerned, they have spoken for a large number of men. Is it to be said that they speak with no representative voice? It was not said a few months ago.

Mr. AMMON: What I put to the House was that the only record of membership which we can take is that always demanded by the House from trade unions, namely, the number supplied to the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

Mr. CASSELS: I accept the hon. Member's statement that those are the figures which he gets from the Registrar of Friendly Societies by reason of the fact that this association happens to be registered as a trade union.

Mr. AMMON: And makes a return.

Mr. CASSELS: And makes a return of finance.

Mr. AMMON: Of membership.

Mr. CASSELS: Very well, of membership, but these are branch memberships which have come to this association. I give the House these figures as they have been given to me. It is an extraordinary thing, if these figures are incorrect, that all the branch secretaries of this association should have been concerned in making deliberately false returns to the headquarters of the association. Further, since this matter has been investigated.
do not let us forget what the position was when there was a conference a few months ago regarding the pay of temporary staffs. It was then agreed to and accepted by the representatives of the other associations who were present that the membership of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants was 18,749 and the temporary staff which was then being dealt with was 21,349. I will go a little further upon this question of membership. Those who criticise this society fail to take advantage of an opportunity afforded to them a little while ago by a challenge which was put out by this association. The association took the figure of 10,000 and said to their critics, "If you can show that we have a membership of less than 10,000, we will in respect of the difference between the membership which you show and the figure of 10,000 pay a sum of one shilling for each member to the British Legion Benevolent Fund to show that we feel we have said something which is wrong. On the other hand, for each member that we show over 10,000 you, the critics, will pay one shilling to the same fund." This challenge was never taken up. If the figures which the hon. Member for North Camberwell has given are correct, then I am surprised he has not afforded this most excellent benevolent fund the opportunity of improving its financial position by getting a few very useful shillings which I am sure would be most acceptable.
This is a representative association. It is said there were other associations which ought to have been consulted. One of these is the National Whitley Council. They claim, though I do not know how a search at the office will support it, to represent everybody in the Civil Service. One thing I may say is that they do not represent the temporary ex-service civil servants concerned in this actual agreement. If it is said that they do represent these men, then five years ago the suggestion of the National Council in regard to this question was that temporary ex-service civil servants over the age of 35 could abandon the hope of any possibility of permanent employment. Further, they said in February, 1920, that no more vacancies could be filled up on the permanent staff after the end of that year. That was poor consolation to the ex-Service temporary civil servants
who contemplated any possibility of getting on to the permanent staffs. Then there is the Civil Service Clerical Association. I do not suppose that even its best friend would suggest that it has a particular leaning towards ex-service men. A prominent official of that association said when this Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants was being formed that the idea of organising permanent civil servants on the basis of whether they had served or not was as logical as organising them on the basis of whether they ever had or had not the measles.
I do not suggest that is a proper way of looking at this matter. I suggest there is a difference between the ex-service civil servant and the non-service civil servant, and I am going to preserve that distinction so long as this question is the subject matter of discussion. It is said that this association has done little and is not entitled to be heard on a matter of this kind. When the Kew clerks were dismissed this association conducted the agitation which will be remembered in this House, and it was obstructed in every step by the staff organisations it was described in the course of this agitation as an infamous association. Its very honesty was questioned. So far as I am concerned with it, it is an association which has done extremely useful work. It has, at any rate, kept alive this question which, if the National Council had had its way, would have been dead at the end of 1920. It has agitated' for a body of men who are entitled to every consideration. If this association has committed any crime it is the crime of being successful in a matter in regard to which, so far as I am able to judge the efforts of other organisations, the preference was for failure. I hope the agree-merit will be carried through without any more difficulty. There is no need for any further inquiry. We want this agreement, the ex-service men want it, and it will be an extremely good ending to a controversy which is certainly not very creditable to this country's treatment of ex-service men in the Civil Service.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I hope we shall not be influenced by the bandying of words as to which association has done most for ex-service men. I am satisfied that every section of the House is anxious, whatever agreement is come to,
that it will be the one most favourable to the ex-service men. As I understand the criticisms which have been made, the main point at issue is whether this particular agreement is most advantageous for the ex-service men themselves. There has been an extraordinary conflict of opinion as to the merits of the agreement and surely that is a reason why there should be further inquiry and investigation in order that the best may be done for the ex-service men themselves. Apart from that consideration this seems to be a serious matter to a large section of the Civil Service, many of whom are themselves ex-service men. This is not a question of being for or against ex-service men. There are 140,000 ex-service men in the Civil Service and it is the benefit of all the ex-service men that we must consider.
It is a serious matter if in your Civil Service you have a certain amount of dissatisfaction and fear as to what may be the outcome of this agreement. Speaking not long ago in this House, the Prime Minister made an impassioned appeal for peace in industry, and, surely, it is essential that we should have peace in the Civil Service, and that we should have a contented and satisfied Civil Service. It may be that the fears of thr civil servants are groundless and that they are labouring under a delusion on this matter. Whether that be so or not, the fact remains that they feel that this agreement is not in the best interests of the ex-service men themselves and would militate against the best traditions of the Civil Service. Those fears may be entirely wrong, but the fact that they are there is surely a good reason why this Committee should be granted, and the matter discussed in a friendly way. We believe in having the best relations between employers and employed outside this House, and, surely, the smile thing applies to those who are in a sense in our employment. Therefore, I submit, that it is essential, if we are to have the best work from our civil servants, that they should be content as to the terms of the agreement under which they are to work, and I hope that when the House comes to a decision it may, in the interests of the Civil Service, and particularly of the ex-service men, grant this inquiry.
It is not suggested that this agreement should be thrown on one side, but
rather that its merits should be understood, and I submit that as a result of this discussion any impartial Member, coming to the question with an open mind, and not knowing more about it than we have heard on either side to-night, will be under some considerable misconception as to what are the real facts of the case. On the one side, we hear that this agreement takes away much that the Southborough Report gave, and, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for West Leyton (Mr. Cassels) has told us that it is infinitely better than the Southborough Report. I should like the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he replies, to give us some assurance on some of the points of difficulty that have been put to us in the circulars that we have received. It is suggested that, under the Southborough Report, there was a probability of 13,000 established permanent posts being available for the temporary ex-service men. On the other hand, under this agreement, there will be only something like 5,000 of those established, permanent, pensionable posts, whereas you will have created a new class of 8,000 non-pensionable posts. That may be alluring and tempting at the moment in giving security, but, on the other hand, when the ex-service man who has accepted this comes to the end of his days and finds there is no pension, his position is not a desirable one.
9.0 P.M.
We were told that under the Southborough Agreement all established vacancies in the clerical class on the 1st January were to be available for temporary civil servants, and that in addition 50 per cent. of the vacancies that occurred year by year should be. available for the temporary class. That, I understand, is wiped out by this agreement. The suggestion has been made that the other branches of the Civil Service are in no way prejudiced by this agreement, and reference has been made to the Post Office in particular. I have had representations made from my own constituency, from the postal workers there, the majority of whom are ex-service men, that their prospect in the future will be decidedly prejudiced by this arrangement, because, instead of having 8,000 established permanent posts, you are creating a special class of 8,000 unpensionable unestablished posts, and that, therefore,
their chance of promotion in the future up to the clerical class will be prejudiced. It is not in any selfish sense that this claim is put forward, but in order that the status of the Civil Service as a whole, and of the clerical class, shall be maintained and the numbers enlarged, and I submit that, according to this agreement, the numbers of those who are the established clerical class are 8,000 less than they might be if the Southborough Report were to go through. This shows that there is considerable fear and doubt as to what may be the outcome of this Report, and if that be so, surely a question which has troubled this House ever since the beginning will not be seriously prejudiced if further delay takes place in order to get a thoroughly satisfactory and friendly settlement. I am satisfied that in every part of the House we are anxious to do the best we can for the ex-service men. Many of us took part in those recruiting meetings at the time of the War, and pledged ourselves then to do our best for the men when they came back, and it is in memory of that pledge that we want something to-day better than this agreement.
I submit to those who are in favour of this agreement that it would be better if, instead of having the 8,000 non-established class, they could be put in the stronger position of being 8,000 pensionable civil servants, men who would get a pension at the end of their time. We are pleading for better conditions for the temporary men who are going to come in, and surely the question of finance cannot be so serious that the Treasury cannot give Ray on these particular points. I hope this House will agree to the Resolution on the Paper and allow a Committee representing all sections that will be affected to go into this question. In the past these questions have been settled by the National Whitley Council and by all grades concerned. Why should a settlement be arrived at by one section only, ignoring the other sections concerned? I submit, in the interest of the Civil Service and of good will and good feeling on all sides, than it is desirable that these doubts and difficulties should be removed, and that they can be removed only by granting the request put forward from these benches.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: We have heard one or two strange doctrines preached to-night from the other side of the House. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) told us, not once, not twice, but so many times that at last I gave up counting, that this agreement was an absolutely corrupt agreement. The number of times he used the word "corruption" made a very serious strain upon the patience, I think, of most Members in the House, but he failed entirely to show where the corruption was. I can rather see a difference, which may be what he is really driving at, between the position of those who sit on the benches opposite and those who sit upon these benches. He quoted the Prime Minister, who, when speaking last year, said he never answered a questionnaire, and 'he proceeded to accuse the Prime Minister of not taking his own medicine by reason of the fact that he answered, not a questionnaire at all, but a reasonable request from people who were entitled to know the policy of the party, and gave a pledge on behalf of the party. There is, of course, an essential difference between the two things, and while I agree that the Prime Minister's advice was right, I equally think that he acted in accordance with his own advice.
The position of the Prime Minister was essentially a different position to those who last year occupied these benches. If memory serves me aright, no less than 17 of those who occupied the Treasury Bench last year gave, before the Election of 1923, a definite pledge to the Associated Ex-Service. Civil Servants that they were in favour of ex-service men, temporarily employed in the Civil Service, being admitted without examination. Directly they got upon these benches they failed entirely to carry out that pledge. The right hon. Gentleman who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. Graham) was challenged on the matter in this House. He said that any pledge that was given was always given subject to the test of efficiency. Therefore, he said, the pledge he gave was that efficient men, who were ex-service temporary civil servants, should be admitted to establishment, without examination, provided they were efficient. Apparently, in order to get at efficiency, you must have an examination. That was the sort of way he interpreted this pledge to this House! Here is a quotation from the
OFFICIAL REPORT of what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who then represented the Rushholme Division (Mr. Master-man):
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that every pledge -that -was given was given subject to that question of efficiency."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 27th March, 1924; col. 1670, Vol. 171.]
Then he proceeded for about 10 minutes to point out to the House that, in order to get that efficiency, you must have some test, and when you go through the speech you find that the only test suggested is that of examination. I think I have given a perfectly fair rendering of the effect of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman. That leads me to what the hon. Gentleman who first spoke on this matter really meant when he was talking about occupation; it is this: It is not corrupt to answer a questionnaire in the affirmative and then, after you get your chance, refuse to carry out what you promised; but it is corruption to give a pledge and, when you get into office, carry it out. That, apparently, is the position which hon. Gentlemen take up, a position which we shall not, I feel sure, take up, and break every pledge in doing so. I have not heard one single pledge which anyone on this side has broken. I think the one pledge above all others that every one of us on this side of the House would do all we could to keep would be a promise to the ex-service men who are temporarily employed in Civil Service.
There is one other extraordinary statement which we have heard from the benches opposite. We have heard what a pitiable thing it is that you should put 8,000 men in a position where, when they retire at the age of 60, they will not get a pension. It was spoken of, certainly, by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), certainly by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes), almost as though we were taking the right from persons to a pension who to-day had that right. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, then, if that is not so, I really do not see where the complaint lies. I think it is necessary, in order to follow out what has been said on the other side of the House, to review the position, and I will review it very shortly.
The Southborough Committee reported just before October of last year, if I remember rightly. By the operation of
the Report of the Southborough Committee a certain number of temporary civil servants who were ex-service men would have been taken into the established Civil Service by examination. So far as the rest were concerned, they would have had no chance whatever of getting into the established Civil Service. They would have remained merely temporary civil servants without any right to a pension and subject to the - liability to be discharged at any moment. If I remember aright, on 4th October, the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was asked the decision of his Government in regard to the Southborough Committee's Report. His reply was that they proposed to adopt the report in its entirety. A little later he was asked why the Government could not consent to do without examination. I think there bad been a discussion, and, if my memory serves me aright, he refused to do anything of the sort.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: It was the very opposite. The Labour Government gave an undertaking that before the Southborough Committee's Report was applied there would be a full discussion in this House. If we had been in office that would have taken place in December.

Mr. GREAVES-LORD: I speak subject to correction, and I do not want to overstate my case in the smallest detail. Before, however, giving that pledge, we have the evidence of the 4th October in this House of the decision of the Government to adopt the Southborough Committee's Report. If the Southborough Committee's Report had been adopted, the position would have been that these men would have remained merely temporaries, without any right to superannuation. The position to-day is this: First of all, the Southborough Committee's Report limited those who were taken to vacancies on 1st January, 1925. All who could not fill vacancies at that time were left entirely outside. By this agreement, instead of those who were left outside the established Civil Service being haunted day and night by the fear that they might at any moment be dismissed, 8,000 of them are given that sense of security which a permanent agreement for the future can give. Under these circumstances, so far from these men having been put in a disadvantageous
position by this agreement, there are 8,000 who are put in a position of the very greatest advantage. I assume that the arguments opposite are based upon a sort of suggestion that these 8,000 men are going to do permanent work.
One of the most remarkable things in connection with this question is the way in which those who oppose this agreement differ in their view from time to time. I have received on a number of occasions within the last two or three months circulars from an association called the Civil Service Clerical Association. These circulars are signed by a gentleman who seeks time after time to condemn this agreement. I believe he is not unassociated with some hon. Gentlemen opposite. His name is Mr. W. J. Brown. What he says about the matter is this:
That there is no alteration in the existing provision with regard to temporary clerks who do not pass the clerical examination. They are given permanent unestablished positions. At first sight this looks a big departure, but it is not nearly so big a departure as it looks. What it boils clown to is this: The work upon which the temporary clerks are at present is purely temporary work, which will gradually disappear, and partly permanent work of a sustained character. The number of temporary clerks is now 18,000. The Treasury argue that having regard to the average age of the temporaries and the probable rate of reduction, it is a sound proposition to decide that 8,000 temporaries shall be treated as permanants.
In other words, they are doing on a permanent basis the work they had been previously been doing as temporaries. The only difference is, that they are given permanence instead of being subjected to the constant fear of being turned out of their position.
Under these circumstances it does not lie with hon. Members on the opposite benches to go out into the country and suggest that this agreement is wrong because it does not give more to these 8,000 men, who never had a chance of pensionable service, unless they passed an examination under the Southborough Committee: to suggest that this agreement is unjust to these men because it does not give them a chance which they never had, while it does give them that permanence which was the main thing for which they were contending! I am not going to-follow out in detail the whole matter which has been discussed, but there is one
subject of considerable importance which was not dealt with, that is the provision made for the position of men who are entitled by their technical equipment, or at any rate are enabled by their technical equipment, to take technical positions. They are given an advantage under this agreement which they could never have obtained otherwise, and if there is one thing more than another which strikes one in the agreement it is the very well deserved and desirable preference which is given throughout the agreement not merely to ex-service men but, especially, to those ex-service men who have been disabled in the service of their country.
Let us look at one document which came into my hands to-day. It is from the Whitley Council, staff side, and this is the way it is put:
The Southborough Report provided that the ex-service men should have all vacancies in established classes on the 1st January, 1925. This agreement proposes to divide these into two categories, and only to give the terms of the Southborough Report to 5,000 ex-service men, and to the remaining 13,000 much worse terms, both in present pay and utimate conditions, for example, in pension.
That is just the thing which hon. Members opposite have been saying. Anyone reading this would have thought that but for this agreement there were 18,000 pensionable posts which would have been given to the temporary civil servants who were ex-service men. Instead of that;, we know perfectly well, on the calculations which the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave in this House last year, the number could not have exceeded 5,000 in any circumstances. Those 5,000 are given by the agreement, and the only difference is that something more is given than was given under the Southborough Report, while this document, from the staff side of the Whitley Council, suggests that, in fact, we are giving very much less. There is the other suggestion that there is harm to other classes by reason of the fact that the work is of a permanent character; I have dealt with that.
Further, there is this gross misrepresentation, included as one of their grounds for disassociating themselves from this agreement, the gross misreprsentation as to the representative character of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. A case which has to be supported by docu-
ments which start out with a gross misrepresentation of the position of the case, is not a case that can ever commend itself to any body of reaosnable men. Take one position alone—with regard to the Whitley Council. They say this matter should have been settled by them. if that is so, what need for the Southborough Committee? If this is a matter that should be settled by the Whitley Council alone, why was the Southborough Committee ever appointed? The whole position is this: The Temporary Staffs Confederation, I am told, had all together 23,000 members, and of those 23,000 members at the time when there was a Confederation 20,000 were members of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. What the membership of the other bodies who compose the Temporary Staffs Confederation is we do not know. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) has had the advantage that he can get from the Returns of the Registrar of Friendly Societies the membership of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants, but not one of the other bodies that composed the Temporary Staffs Confederation ever made a return at all, because they were not trade unions and under no obligation to do so. On the figures of the Confederation there could not have been more than 3,000—a figure of 3,000 which we have had no opportunity of checking—and we are told that this body of 3,000 represents the ex-service temporary civil servants, more than 20,000 of whom are, in fact, members of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants. So far as we can see, the position is this. An agreement has been made with those who, at any rate, cannot be accused of ever desiring to sacrifice the position of the ex-service man, who have fought in season and out of season for the ex-service man, and they are, and say they are—I know, because I have a very large number of them in my constituency—[HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"]—I am entitled to represent them and shall represent them—they say definitely that they are satisfied with this agreement. On the other hand, I have quite a number of members of some of these other bodies in my constituency, but of all the letters I have had I have not had more than four disagreeing in any way with the terms of this agreement, and those four letters were obviously written in the same office and sent out for signature by the
four men. On all grounds, I submit, this is an agreement which, in the interests of justice to ex-service men, should be approved, and I hope this House will approve it.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The life of a Financial Secretary to the Treasury is at all times melancholy, but I think I shall carry my predecessors with me when I say, after my nine months' experience, that there is probably no more difficult part of his duty than that of dealing with the innumerable problems and conflicts of interests within the Civil Service. I do not suppose that any Financial Secretary leaves office satisfied with his record, however honestly he has tried to deal with the situation. I imagine he is rather like the famous criminal lawyer. If he has as many friends on the one side as he has enemies on the other, he comes to the conclusion that, on the whole, justice has been done. The problem which confronts us to-night has faced this House for several years, and, of course, was aggravated very largely by the circumstances of the War, when we were compelled to take into the Civil Service large numbers of people who never meant to be civil servants, temporary or permanent, and for many of whom, more particularly the ex-service men, we had to try to make some provision within the Service after the War was over.
I want to say one or two words, however brief, in introduction. First of all, I think the Financial Secretary will agree that we must keep this controversy to-night strictly within this House. In previous controversies of this kind there has been a disposition to assail the permanent officials of the Treasury on the ground that they, like other civil servants, were inclined to put barriers in the way of a solution of this problem. It was my experience, and I think it will be borne out by the experience of others, that they place at the disposal of Ministers only the most disinterested information and advice. It is entirely for us to come to a conclusion in the difficulty before us to-night. Secondly, the House would make a very grave mistake if it imagined that this was a conflict of interest between ex-service men on thy one side and non-service men on the other. That is very far from being the case, because of the total civil service of
280,000 people in this country, approximately 140,000 are ex-service men, and, of course, there are the men who are not directly connected with this association in the temporary class.
Having made those points plain, may I ask hon. Members to recall the circumstances in which we left this controversy in October, 1924, because these circumstances are very important to-night. The problem was handled by the Lytton Committee and afterwards by the Southborough Committee, which was a Committee representative of all parties in the House, under the chairmanship of Lord Southborough, charged with the duty of finding a permanent and final solution of this problem. That Committee, representative of all parties, signed a unanimous Report, which was accepted by the House of Commons and on which we undertook, prior to leaving office, to grant a day for discussion. In short, that Report provided that as regards these temporary ex-service men class they would get all the vacancies, after examination, occurring up to 31st December, 1924, and that, after that date, they would have 50 per cent., or one half of the vacancies that occurred. Whatever controversy there may be in this House to-night, there is not the least doubt that when that Committee was set up representative of all parties, and signed their Report, it was understood that it was to be regarded as a solution of this difficulty. I do not remember any Member in any part of the House who seriously challenged that state of affairs.
What happened during the General Election? That election campaign came in October, 1924, before this discussion could take place and the consequence was that the position of the ex-service men in the service was part and parcel of the General Election controversy. I imagined that whatever Government succeeded ours, if a change was to take place, would adhere to the policy of making this the subject of a perfectly free discusion in the new House of Commons. I was, therefore, very much surprised that during that election campaign a paragraph was inserted in the manifesto which the Prime Minister issued before the election holding out, no doubt vaguely, some kind of promise that this situation would be treated on different lines. After that
declaration the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants became practically a party body. They issued leaflets in support of Conservative candidates all over the country, with the exception of only two constituencies, both of them Liberal, one standing in a constituency in which there was no Conservative candidate and the other a candidate, no longer a Member of this House, whose claims they could not ignore. I do not in the least mind personally what political faith anyone adopts, but as Financial Secretary of the day, I was naturally surprised at this attitude.
I want to ask this House quite frankly, irrespective of any party question to-night, this simple question. Is that a desirable way of settling problems in the British Civil Service? I have been very strongly criticised by some of my own supporters because I have taken the view that as regards important matters in the Civil Service it is in their interest in many branches of the Service not to get mixed up in party strife. That applies in the same way to the class we are considering to-night. They conducted that campaign especially against all the members of the late Government. Of that I do not complain. The result was the agreement issued a few weeks ago and the subject of our Debate to-night. There is not the least doubt that that is setting a precedent for future controversies in the Civil Service, and that different political parties may offer promises in order to attract a certain class of support. I deplore a result of that kind. I think it is perfectly fair, without prying into the circumstances of any political party, to ask the Financial Secretary to-night for some statement of the circumstances that led up to that promise and what were 'the negotiations which took place between this association and the Conservative headquarters, because, of course, it has become much more than a bargain between a political party and an association. It has become an agreement which this House is asked to provide for and we are, therefore, fully entitled to ask for these facts.
I come now to one or two of the other aspects of this difficulty. This association makes claim to-day to be representative of temporary ex-service men To that there is a very effective reply. During the time we were at the Treasury nobody
could get the exact membership of this body, and until very lately it certainly was not more than 9,000 or 10,000 at the outside. Even if we take the grossly exaggerated figure of its membership as being between 10,000 on the one hand and 18,000 on the other, it still remains true, beyond challenge of any kind, that it is very far short of the aggregate of 34,000 temporary ex-service men in the Civil Service. That leads me to notice the exact scope and meaning of this agreement. The Southborough Committee Report was understood to be a final solution which was to be the subject of debate in this House. One would have imagined that, in ordinary justice to the Southborough Committee, no modification of that agreement, no addition to that agreement, would have been made, without consulting the Committee. The present Government take the view that this is not a modification of the Southborough Committee's arrangement. They say that the examination will stand, that the vacancies occurring up to 1924 will be duly filled, and that one half of the vacancies in the clerical staff, after examination, will go on, and they provide also that the ex-service men will take their part in the examination and tests to be held. Incidentally, that disposes of a large part of the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Norwood (Mr. Greaves-Lord), who was inclined to make a great point of what I was alleged to have said in the last Parliament.
The Financial Secretary now comes forward and says that he proposes a supplementary arrangement. In other words, we are legislating on an unqualified class in the sense that they will not qualify at this examination. Let us consider the state of affairs to which we are reduced by this proposal. By some kind of estimate it has been thought that looking ahead in the Civil Service there may be in the figure of 21,000 a total which may be taken as the measurement of temporary members and they are to be placed in a special class. The minimum is to be 8,000, and the percentage will work out at about 12,900. I ask hon. Members to consider the wisdom of appointing a class of this kind in the Civil Service. I think the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) was perfectly fair when he suggested that this is an
injustice to ex-service men. First of all, the remuneration in this class will not be regarded as sufficient, and they are unestablished with no pension rights; they are only quasi-permanent.
It is perfectly erroneous for any hon. Member of this House to suggest that this is a final and complete solution of the problem. Hon. Members opposite have indicated that these men will proceed to fight for establishment, but as I understand this agreement, it was signed between the Government and the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants as a final and complete discharge of this matter. If that be so, then this agreement was concluded by consulting one association only, and an association by no means completely representing these men. From the point of view of the ordinary people in the Civil Service this is perfectly intolerable, and on that ground alone there is an adequate case for further inquiry.
But there is another very strong indictment. During recent years all these interested in Civil Service problems have agreed that the only possible way to deal with them is on a comprehensive and representative basis, and you must do that through the recognised machinery, which in this case was the National Whitley Council. No new departure in the Civil Service should be made without consulting that machinery. But that body was never consulted at all, and this agreement has been made with this association without any consultation with the National Whitley Council of the Civil Service. I imagine that the Financial Secretary's reply will be that this was exclusively a problem of the ex-service men, and that the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants is the only body to deal with it. No doubt the right hon Gentleman will say that on this ground he was entitled to settle in consultation with them and not through the National Whitley Council machinery.
If that is to be the reply, then I say it is perfectly inadequate, because this cannot be regarded as applying exclusively to that section of ex-service men at all. Directly or indirectly, although it may be separate from the Southborough Committee's Report, it becomes part of the Civil Service organisation, and it must be traced
and can be traced to the interests of other ex-service men whose claims ought to have been consulted through the proper channel. On that ground, also, this agreement, from every point of view, is undesirable. I do not think this is in any sense a final settlement of this problem. You will get an arrangement, plus the application, of the Southborough Committee's Report, upon which you will get the basis of a minimum of 8,000, but the fact remains, even if outside industries and commerce absorb a certain number of the men now in the Civil Service, you leave a substantial residue upon a partially temporary basis. Therefore, these men are open to all that uncertainty and insecurity which has been referred to by hon. Members, and this is only a partial handling of the situation. We take the view that it is a perfectly reasonable request for us to press for such a Committee of this House, and for such machinery as will review, in the interests of ex-service men, this arrangement, and endeavour to arrive at a very much better solution. I support that request because I am perfectly satisfied that any other course is not in the highest and best interest of the Civil Service.

Mr. GUINNESS: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down gave vent to one opinion with which we on this side of the House are in hearty agreement when he said that the Civil Service ought not to get mixed up in party strife. I think I shall be able to show that the readiness to allow this question to enter on that dangerous path came, not from us, but from the party with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite is associated. He expressed one or two other opinions with which I agree, and, therefore, I will refer to them before I come to those subjects with which I disagree. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that the National Whitley Council was the normal channel for making agreements which affect the Civil Service. I quite agree with that argument, but there are special cases which are not suitable for such a decision. And by the right hon. Gentleman's own record, this question of ex-service civil servants is one of them, because the right hon. Gentleman and his leader accepted the Southborough Report. In that case, did they consult the National
Whitley Council before doing so? Why then does the right hon. Gentleman criticise us for ignoring the Whitley Council on that subject when his own party left this question it a state of ferment and dissatisfaction?
The right hon. Gentleman has criticised the Prime Minister because of the promise he made at the General Election. That promise was that he would suspend the arrangement for the Southborough examination until Parliament had had a chance of expressing its opinion, if it wished to do so: and he also undertook to give the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants a chance of stating their case. Is that such a terrible innovation in our elections? I should have thought that you could not have had a more colourless or noncommittal pledge if you had set about finding a way to evade any commitment at all. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) was good enough to criticise the right hon. Gentleman's action as an instance of political corruption. I think he is relying on the number of new Members in the House, and trusting to very short memories on the part of old Members. We who have sat in this House for some years past know to our cost the history of this question in previous elections. We remember what happened in 1923. The ex-service civil servants, through their association, wrote to the late Prime Minister. There was no excessive purism on his part. He did not put the letter in the wastepaper basket because civil servants were to be kept out of political controversy. Not a bit of it. He filled np the whole of the questionnaire, and, in case that should not be enough, he wrote them a personal letter, in which he said:
You will readily understand that in a national pronouncement every detail cannot be set out, or it would run to many pages and be something like an auctioneer's catalogue. But the general phrase about ex-service men covers everything that you require.
As the result of that letter from the late Prime Minister, the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants decided to support Labour candidates throughout the country. I expect that the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury had the benefit of that arrangement, just as much as the rest of his party. Thereby the ex-service civil servants vindicated their com-
plete independence from bearing any grudge for the pacifist action of a certain section of the party opposite, Which they supported at the Election. They even supported on the platform the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and also the representative of the whole of the Communist party in the House. The House will see that the Association of Ex-Civil Servants, which it is now suggested is a mere appendage of the Conservative party, did in 1923 deliver the goods; but the trouble is that, after he got his post, the then Prime Minister forgot to do his part of the bargain, and at the last Election he reaped the reward for his broken pledge. We did not give a pledge to give this organisation everything that it required; we merely said that we would give it a hearing. Really, this has very little to do with the issue to-night, but I am bound to say it because the issue has been deliberately raised from the benches opposite. I believe that this organisation, to its credit, represents those who belong to it, and that it is a non-party organisation. If it had gone on supporting the Labour party—it did support some Labour candidates even at the last Election, and also some Liberal candidates—if it had gone on supporting the whole, it would have made no difference to our action. We should have dealt with the matter in just the same way, not because of that organisation, but because it is our opinion that we are in honour bound to do what we can for the ex-service men, consistently with the interests and efficiency of the Civil Service.
What are we asked to do to-night? We are asked to set up another Committee. We have already had four. We have had the Re-organisation Committee of the National Whitley Council; we have had the Temporary Staffs Committee; we have had the Lytton Committee; and we have had the Southborough Committee. One thing that has been borne in upon us on this side is the necessity for finality, and let me tell the House what the Southborough Committee said on that subject. They said:
They have had evidence which made it very clear how desirable it is, in the interests both of the ex-service men and of the efficiency of the Government Service, that a final solution of this very difficult question should now be reached.
We believe that we have all the information at our disposal now to enable us to reach this finality. The particular point which evokes most controversy is the position of the temporary clerks. Let me, in a few words, state the matter as it appears to us. Even before the War, there was a temporary fringe of unestablished men in the Civil Service to carry the peak load of seasonal and other exceptional work. After the War, of course, there was a very great temporary expansion, followed by a very sudden contraction under the necessity of economy. Ex-service men who had been taken on found themselves faced with the loss of their employment. The House of Commons did everything it could to ensure that they should have preference. It set up, among other methods, the Joint Substitution Board. But, in spite of that, a great deal of dissatisfaction was caused by those men who had served continuously through the War, in many cases, and who had been employed afterwards in the Civil Service, being suddenly thrown out, completely at a loose end, out of touch with the industries in which they would otherwise have been, and finding that all the places which they would have hoped to occupy were already filled. All the sympathy of the House, and all the sympathy which was no doubt felt by Ministers responsible in the Departments, could not, however, justify the Treasury in sacrificing the efficiency of the public service by absorbing wholesale into the established Civil Service these temporary men who had been taken on, without, any inquiry as to their efficiency and regardless of their fitness for the work. The difficulty is explained in the Report of the Southborough Committee. They say, on page 7 of the Report:
The duties required of temporary clerks vary considerably. In many cases they are of a most routine character. On the other hand, the duties required of members of the clerical class, and more particularly of numbers of persons upon the higher ranges of the scale, the basic maximum of which is £250 a year plus the appropriate cost of living bonus, are of considerable importance, and we consider that it would not be right for men to be appointed to this class who are not fully capable of carrying out all its duties.
They go on, after another passage, to say:
We feel it right, in view of the strong claims which have been made to us, to draw
particular attention to the distinction between the duties of the clerical class and the more elementary routine duties of the ex-service men employed in a temporary capacity.
There was no method of sifting out the people qualified for permanent establishment from the less efficient men, other than the method of examination. Three Committees which inquired into it in turn came to that conclusion, and the Southborough Committee, last of all, has elaborated a system of examination. By giving a certain weight to departmental efficiency, arrived at by filling up the questionnaire as to all the capacities of the candidate shown in departmental work, and by eliminating certain papers which had given great dissatisfaction in the examination held on the recommendation of the Lytton Committee, the Southborough Committee elaborated a system which, I think, got as near perfection as we could get if we are to have an examination at all. I have always felt that an examination for men of over 30 is a very undesirable method. As the Civil Service is organised on a departmental basis, as you have about 80 different Departments, and as the proportions of permanent to temporary vary extremely, it is only by examination that you can get the necessary uniformity of standard which is demanded in common fairness to the whole of the candidates. If you do not have examinations, and you cannot do it by the recommendation of 80 different Departments, your only alternative is a selection committee, and assuming you have 18,000 candidates to go through it would take at least three years for the selection committee to work through the lot. I believe therefore that this recommendation of the Southborough Committee was the inevitable conclusion which any committee would have been bound to reach.
10.0 P.M.
The last Government accepted this recommendation. The present Prime Minister at the last election left the matter open and said that before any final conclusion was reached the Ex-Service Associations should have a chance of being heard. As soon as we were appointed to our present offices we proceeded to examine the case. We found that there was no alternative to selection by means of examination, but we found also that the chief reason for the dissatisfaction which was felt by the ex-service
temporaries was the fear of unemployment, and we searched for a way of allaying this anxiety. We explored the possibility of ensuring security of tenure to the maximum number of temporary civil servants for whom we could foresee the prospect of employment on a succession of temporary jobs. We had, of course, to find a figure which would not commit us to keeping men on when there was no work to give them, and, allowing for waste and for the refilling of men as they drop out from the permanent class to the extent of one in three, we arrived at 8,000 as the number for whom we could safely provide for the normal course of their life in the Civil Service. Assuming 4,900 qualified in the Southborough examination, the 8,000 to whom we proposed permanency brings us up to 60 per cent. of the total number of men now employed as clerks on a temporary basis, and we, therefore, reached this agreement guaranteeing permanency to this proportion, with a minimum of 8,000 to be guaranteed permanency from among the unsuccessful candidates for establishment at the Southborough examination. The effect of that is that if more than 4,900 qualified at the examination for establishment, the percentage of the total who will get permanency or establishment will run up by the amount exceeding 4,900 successful candidates at the examination indefinitely. On the other hand, if less than that 4,900 qualify, the guaranteed 60 per cent. would be made up by increasing the necessary number of 8,000 who are guaranteed permanency. We have provided that, in selecting for permanency, the Departments will give preference to men who are disabled and who have served overseas.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Captain Fraser) asked whether we would cover ex-service women. Ex-service women, of course, raise rather a different question. They compete in public sympathy with war widows, and, therefore, the matter is not quite so simple and it is not so easy to draw a hard and fast line. Besides that, there is another opening for these ex-service women which is not open to the ex-service man, namely, entry into the class of writing assistants. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we will give and are giving this matter,
in response to the representations which have been made to us, our careful consideration. Then my hon. and gallant Friend, in that speech to which the House listened with great admiration—one of the most impressive maiden efforts which in all my time in this House I have ever heard—voiced the case of the blind men. These are not necessarily temporary clerks, but they are employed in other capacities, such as telephone operators. I am sure we all admire the undaunted courage with which they face and overcome that terrible and glorious disability from which they suffered. I believe it is unthinkable that any Government could forget the debt which we owe to this class as the most pathetic type of disabled men, but if it is of any comfort to these men to have this assurance I gladly give it, that we will extend to them the same benefits of permanency that we have given to the ex-service civil servants who are covered by this agreement.
I now come to the criticisms which have been offered. I am afraid hon. Members have found that they receive representations on this subject with an embarrassing profusion. The first criticism, which we have heard a good deal of, is that the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants is unrepresentative. All I can say is that this organisation has represented the ex-service men from the very beginning of this agitation. Old members of the House will remember the Debate which they instigated, which led to the Lytton Committee and to the Southborough Committee, and I am quite sure my predecessor at the Treasury will remember that when he dealt with ex-service civil servants, the natural champions were always this same organisation. Figures were given to-night which are not in my possession showing that they do, as a matter of fact, represent far more than a majority of temporary civil servants for whom they speak; but that does not really concern the point. My choice was limited. This was the only organisation to whom I could go. It was no good going to the National Whitley Council, because the ex-service civil servants are not represented as such upon that body, and this organisation, which seems to have earned such great reproach from the benches opposite, is the only organisation which does represent ex-service civil servants as such. The National Whitley Council is organised on a basis of grades,
and it does not recognise such interests as the ex-service civil servants.
We are told that what we have done is against the principles of Whitleyism. The system of collective negotiation in the Civil Service does not prevent, and never has prevented, discussion on other lines, as, for instance, between Government representatives and the staff associations representing the interests of particular classes. Circumstances must decide in each case which procedure is the best. We knew quite well what the views of the staff side were, and we were also aware that if we consulted the National Whitley Council, we should have had no agreement at all. I felt that our obligation, if we negotiated direct, was to see that no other interests which were not consulted could in any way be adversely affected. That we have done. Those above the clerical staff in the Civil Service establishment are, of course, unaffected. Those below them in the establishment are equally unaffected, provided their guaranteed channels of promotion remain open. I know hon. Members behind me have many representations from certain classes in the Post Office, who seem anxious lest they lose that normal opportunity of promotion to which they were looking forward That case was covered by the Southborough Report, and the Post Office have, therefore, set up a Committee to see that this normal promotion shall in no way be blocked. The arrangement is that 25 per cent.—

Mr. STEPHEN: Speak this way!

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sorry if the hon. Member did not hear, but he was complaining a few minutes ago that I spoke too loud. It is no less important for hon. Members on this side than for those on the other side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Address the Speaker!"] The point I was going to make was that 25 per cent. of the vacancies were guaranteed to the grades in the establishment below. This 25 per cent. is secured by the Departmental arrangements in the Post Office. Those men in manipulative grades who wish to be promoted sit, I believe, for examinations, but, whatever be the method by which they are promoted, they are secure in their 25 per cent. They are in no way affected by the method adopted for recruiting the remaining 75 per cent. It does not matter to them in the least
whether that 75 per cent. is taken by means of the Southborough examination from the ex-service civil servants on a temporary basis, or whether it is taken from outside by free examination. I believe that we have not in any way affected the interests of any established men in the Civil Service by giving the ex-service civil servants a privileged right, as compared with people not in the Civil Service, to sit for a special examination admitting them to establishment.
The criticism which has been chiefly expressed on this view is that it takes away something that is given in the Southborough Report. That is absolutely untrue. If it were true, the association which represents the exservice civil servants would most certainly not have accepted it as they did. They opposed the application of the Southborough Report, and they have accepted our new arrangement, became, while leaving the Southborough Report intact in all its details, it adds something to it to meet the case of the unsuccessful candidates. The Civil Service Clerical Association have circularised the House with some very remarkable literature. They have stated in their last circular which came round the other day, that had the Southborough Report been adhered to, 13,000 temporaries would have obtained permanent pensionable posts. There is no foundation whatever for that statement. There is no figure of 13,000 anywhere in the Southborough Report. The Southborough Report recommended that all who qualified at the examination would receive these posts, and that arrangement is left absolutely untouched. The same production of the clerical association goes on to say:
The Southborough Report said that every man who passed the qualifying standard of examination should be assured of eventual establishment. The effect of the new agreement is that 8,000 people who stood a reasonable chance of getting established will be for ever denied it.
There, again, that is an absolute invention, and I think the briefest answer I can give is to read the first paragraph in our Memorandum which has been published.
It is agreed that the scheme for qualifying examination recommended by the Southborough Committee for the admission of temporary men to the departmental and clerical classes shall stand, subject only to an extension of the date of application.
So that that last statement of the Clerical Association is a complete invention from first to last. The only criticism to which I attach any importance, because it is founded on argument, and not upon misrepresentation, is the criticism that we ought to have raised the pay and given pensions to these temporaries when they became permanent. I say that is a perfectly honest argument, but I think we have got a strong answer, and it is this, that they are to be given permanency, not in permanent posts, but in a permanency of occupation on a succession of temporary jobs, the same job which they are performing at the present time. That that is a real distinction is clear from our Memorandum, which lays down in Paragraph 3 that men selected for permanency must be willing to transfer, whenever redundant, to other localities and to other Departments. These permanencies are, by the nature of the case, men who have been shown by examination not to be qualified for establishment. Therefore they would be continued in their present lower grade of Civil Service work. The pay which they are receiving for exactly that work has been settled with the Civil Service associations concerned, and there is therefore no reason whatever for making this concession of permanency—a concession to which they, at least, attach much importance—the occasion for giving better pay terms than those already accepted for the same work in a temporary and therefore less desirable capacity. It is a bit late in the day for the permanent associations, committed as they are to the terms of the Southborough Report without any Mitigation, to complain that the settlement at which we have arrived, which is obviously far more generous than that Report, does not go far enough. What has been the argument from the Front Bench opposite? The hon. Member for North Camberwell told us that in the opinion of certain heads of Departments—he did not give their names, but he showed his good faith by offering me the letter, if I wished to see it in confidence—

Mr. AMMON: It was not a letter, but evidence given before the Southborough Committee.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am very glad to clear up that point, because I wondered how the hon. Member could have got
their information. He alluded to that evidence which showed, in his opinion, that these ex-service civil servants are not fit for establishment. He said that they were inefficient. It is rather curious after that, that he says that they ought to have wholesale establishment.

Mr. AMMON: I quoted it as the opinion of these officials that they were inefficient. I read the extract.

Mr. GUINNESS: Of course, if the hon. Member does not accept the opinion of these officials, the whole of his argument falls to the ground. He does not, therefore, accept the opinion of these officials, and, apparently, he wishes that these men should be established without any further qualification in the Civil Service.

Mr. AMMON: The heads of the Civil Service must be considered.

Mr. GUINNESS: Now the hon. Member says it is evidence by the heads of the Civil Service. I understand that the hon. Member was quoting evidence given to the Southborough Committee. Was it confidential evidence given to the Southborough Committee?

Mr. AMMON: I quoted some evidence given to the Committee.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid it is very difficult to follow the hon. Member. I thought at first that they were confidential letters. Now I find that it was confidential evidence given to the Committee. Anyhow, the hon. Member will not say that he does want these people established wholesale. Apparently he does not even want them to secure any permanency of employment either. That being so, apparently he wishes these men to be liable at a moment's notice to be thrown out of their employment. His interest in the ex-service civil servant is now made clear; it is that they should be on a purely temporary basis and that they should be liable to be thrown out of their employment at any moment in obedience to the behests of the organisation represented by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Edgehill (Mr. Hayes) told us what was going to happen in 30 years' time.

Mr. HAYES: Probably less than 30 years.

Mr. GUINNESS: It will be much less than that if the hon. Member has his way. In 30 years or in 20 years, we were told, these ex-service civil servants will be going to the workhouse. The hon. Member for Camberwell North wants them to go to the workhouse to-day. We are further told that this agreement violates the accepted principles of recruitment and pay in the Civil Service. Well, so did the Lytton Committee and the Southborough Report. The War left the Civil Service with various problems of an entirely novel character, which had to be tackled on unprecedented lines. The Civil Service was glad enough to accept these revolutionary changes when they involved Whitleyism, reorganisation Committees and all sorts of advantages to those who were already established, and I think that it is not unreasonable that the people who were fortunate enough to be established in the Civil Service should extend the same advantage of these new methods to the special class of ex-service men.
I am very glad that we have at last had an opportunity of debating this question, and I hope that we are going to have a Division finally to lay at rest all doubts as to whether the Conservative

party intend to carry out their pledges to the ex-service men. While there is nothing in the agreement which can prejudice in any way the interests of a single established civil servant, it will remove uncertainty and fear of unemployment, for many ex-service men. The Motion before the House proposes that another special committee shall be set up. To that I cannot agree. We have had many committees. We have had all too much delay in the settlement of a matter which is long over-ripe for settlement. Now for the first time we have got an agreement, and I do suggest to the House that it is essential that immediate steps should be taken for its final settlement. The men concerned have now been waiting since last June for the Southborough examination, and, seeing the strain and the anxiety which are involved by a continuance of the preparation for that examination, a further postponement would be grossly unfair, and I beg the House not to keep these men waiting any longer.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 279; Noes, 107.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[10.25 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burman, J. B.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Edwards, John H. (Accrington)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Caine, Gordon Hall
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Campbell, E. T.
Elveden, Viscount


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cassels, J. D.
England, Colonel A.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Ashmead-Bartlett, E.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Fermoy, Lord


Astor, Viscountess
Christie, J. A.
Fielden, E. B.


Atkinson, C.
Clarry, Reginald George
Finburgh, S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, G. C.
Fleming, D. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ford, P. J.


Balniel, Lord
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K
Forestier-Walker, L.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Forrest, W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cope, Major William
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bennett, A. J.
Couper, J. B.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Bethell, A.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crook, C. W.
Gates, Percy


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gee, Captain R.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank. Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Brass, Captain W.
Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert
Grant, J. A.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curtis-Bennett. Sir Henry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grotrian, H. Brent


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Hanbury, C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harland, A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bullock, Captain M.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Hawke, John Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Hengage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Skelton, A. N.


Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Herberts, (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Meller, R. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hilton, Cecil
Merriman, F. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark)
Spender Clay, Colonel H.


Holland, Sir Arthur
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Holt, Captain H. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Homan, C. W. J.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stanley, Hon. O.F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Storry Deans, R.


Howard, Capt. Hon. D. (Cumb., N.)
Murchison, C. K.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hume, Sir G. H.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Huntingfield, Lord
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Hurst, Gerald B.
Nuttall, Ellis
Templeton, W. P.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Oakley, T.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Penny, Frederick George
Tinne, J. A.


Jacob, A. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perring, William George
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jephcott, A. R.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Philipson, Mabel
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pilcher, G.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kenyon, Barnet
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Warrender, Sir Victor


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.
Remer, J. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rentoul, G. S.
Wells, S. R.


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rice, Sir Frederick
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Lord, Walter Greaves
Ropner, Major L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Lougher, L.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H. V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, Viscount


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rye, F. G.
Womersley, W. J.


Lumley, L. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. E.(York, W.R., Ripon)


MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wragg, Herbert


MacIntyre, Ian
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord



Macmillan, Captain H.
Savery, S. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry




Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Kennedy, T.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Lansbury, George


Ammon, Charles George
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lee, F.


Attlee. Clement Richard
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, F. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lowth, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barr, J.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Maxton, James


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Murnin, H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Paling, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dalton, Hugh
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Riley, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.


Day, Colonel Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dennison, R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Gillett, George M.
Kelly, W. T.
Saklatvala, Shapurji




Salter, Dr. Alfred
Stephen, Campbell
Whiteley, W.


Scrymgeour, E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wignall, James


Scurr, John
Sutton, J, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Sexton, James
Taylor, R. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Viant, S. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Warne, G. H.



Snell, Harry
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Stamford, T. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Hayes.


Question, "That Clauses 20 to 40 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLASS I.

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £914,300, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices abroad,"—[NOTE: £460,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I should like to ask one or two questions of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote with regard to the provision of unemployment relief works. In looking at the Estimates, I find that in almost every single Vote there Is a serious reduction in the amount allocated this year for unemployment relief works. Throughout the whole of the Votes, I find that there is well over £250,000 reduction for these relief works, whereas the total Estimate shows a decrease of only £11,000, and it seems to me that, in view of the interrogations of the party opposite when they were sitting on these benches, we ought to know what their policy is in the forthcoming year. Are we to take it for granted that they have made up their minds that they are not going to endeavour to provide a single week's work for those who are out of work? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us why there is this very definite attempt throughout the whole of this Estimate to cut down to the lowest possible point the amount set apart for unemployment relief works.
There is another point that I wish to put, and it is in regard to the new works under the Post Office and Telegraph Buildings Vote, as this, I understand, will be the only opportunity that one may
have of referring to this kind of thing. I reside in a district where there is a populaton of 10,000 people, who are all called upon at some time or other to transact postal business, and the only building provided for those people is an ordinary six-roomed house with a parlour, which has been taken away and transformed into a shop, and is now used for postal business. The postmaster has been informed by the Postal Department that he must not undertake to sell stationery, and he must not even sell postcards or envelopes, merely because there is no room on the premises to stock these various commodities. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not only no room to provide for the ordinary commodities that are usually sold from such post offices, but there is no sufficient room to carry on the lawful work. I should like to submit this question: Is it understood by the Department of the hon. Gentleman that in all small urban districts it is the responsibility of the postmaster to provide suitable premises for himself to transact Government business? I notice in this Vote that in many of the larger towns estimates have been put forward for post offices to be built in due course. If post offices can be built in the large towns and cities then why should not similar arrangements be made for the small urban districts? The post office of which I am speaking is totally inadequate to transact the ordinary postal business there in that particular place, and if the hon. Gentleman went in any evening between 6.30 and 7 he would see a shocking state of affairs.
I respectfully submit that there is a duty on the part of the Department to see that suitable accommodation is provided where postal business can be carried on without a part of a very small house being allocated, taken away, as it were from its domestic use, for the purpose of carrying on postal business. Will his
Department undertake to look into this grievance In regard to the other question, namely, the money set aside for unemployment relief, I have no desire to move the Reduction that stands in my name, but, at the same time, the same spirit runs through the whole of these Votes. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why this tremendous reduction is taking place in regard to this particular purpose?

Mr. PALING: Through the whole of these Votes I find that while last year there was allocated for relief unemployment round about £320,000, there has been a reduction this year of £263,000, leaving the sum to be expended for relief unemployment £58,000, as compared with the Estimate last year of £320,000. That is a very serious reduction in view of the fact that unemployment has been going up, and in view of what was said in this House only a few days ago. It was then asked why something was not being done for the unemployed, and the reply was that one of the reasons was because the local authorities were not submitting schemes upon which money might be spent. If they are not submitting schemes, then the Government are showing a very bad example by putting forward such a tremendous reduction upon these schemes in the Votes. I should like to hear what the explanation is. It does appear to me that it is a very serious reduction in view of the terrible amount of unemployment at the present tune.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I want to utter a protest against the extraordinary activity in building suddenly manifested by the Office of Works. In a copy of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" the other day I found a list extending almost to a column of new buildings and repairs which are being carried out by the Office of Works in the next few months. Every builder and every plasterer taken by the Office of Works is a builder or plasterer taken away from urgent housing schemes, and however much it may be necessary to improve the conditions under which some of these civil servants are labouring, it is far more necessary to improve the conditions under which thousands of people are living to-day. I would only ask the Tinder-Secretary of State for the Home Department to go through this list
of Office of Works' buildings with a blue pencil and delete about 50 per cent.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has raised two questions, one of which is very important and the other is of a more local character; and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling) has also raised the same point with regard to unemployment. It is perfectly true that on this occasion we are asking the Committee for a very much smaller sum for unemployment relief than we did in the financial year just ended, but I would like to remind both hon. Gentlemen that only about a fortnight ago we had Supplementary Estimates which totalled very nearly a quarter of a million pounds for unemployment relief during the last few weeks, and there is no doubt at all that if it was found necessary in the future to increase that particular programme, and the unemployment relief committee of the Cabinet decided upon it., we should at some time in the current year have to ask the House for a Supplementary Estimate. This is not an absolutely final decision, for it is always in the power of the House to grant further sums. The fact of the matter is, in regard to the particular Department for which I am answering, there is really no unemployment at the moment among the skilled operatives in the building industry, so that we can do nothing for that particular class of worker. The provision for unskilled labour, so far as the Office of Works is concerned, has been very largely exhausted by the money we have already spent. I think I have said enough to satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have got this in mind, and, if it should turn out to be necessary, further moneys can be asked for in the future.
In regard to the particular point raised by the hon. Member for the Don Valley, I would like to look into that. As a matter of fact, I hardly think it is strictly in order for me to talk about it, because it is not actually an item in the Vote, and I believe one is only in order in discussing something which is in the printed Estimates. Very likely my hon. Friend opposite has got a case. It will be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I will certainly draw the attention of the
First Commissioner to it, and if anything is necessary he may be assured that it will be done.
The hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) said we were building at a tremendous rate. I do not think he can point to any particular item of extravagance in this Vote. We have effected economies wherever possible. We are doing our best to restrict standards of accommodation, and we are doing our best to standardise fittings, and taking those two things together we have been able to effect a good many economies.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether it is necessary to take advantage of the present housing shortage to rebuild Regent Street?? I understand that comes within the purview of the Office of Works.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It has nothing to do with the Office of Works. I believe the Office of Works only comes into it in this way, that if it is proposed to erect a building which is very inartistic in design, the Office of Works makes representations to see that it is brought more into conformity with the public taste.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,197,440, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."—[NOTE: £598,000 has been voted on account.]

Captain BENN: I have no desire to detain the Committee, but I am much interested in the Estimate. What does Item "H" mean? Why for the first time this year are we to find £1,100 for the protection of Chequers? No protection was necessary under the late Government. What is this item? The hon. Gentleman who represents so ably his Department may have an explanation, and I think the House ought to have it.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As a matter of fact I was rather afraid this
question might be raised; therefore I took the opportunity of looking more closely into it. It is perfectly true that an endowment was provided for Chequers out of which it was presumed that all costs were going to be met. The Committee will, perhaps, realise that Chequers is full of very valuable works of art and every single year those works of art are becoming more and more valuable. A picture which 10 years ago was worth, perhaps, only £100 might be worth £1,000 in a very short time. Chequers is very full of these works of art. I think Lord Lee's endowment was merely intended to provide for the maintenance of the structure and provide for the general building. I do not think it was ever intended to find protection for works of art.

Captain BENN: What is this protection? Is it fire insurance or what sort of protection is it?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is merely a question of three police constables. Their duty is to protect the place from burglary.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £331,300 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926 for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."—[NOTE: £165,000 has been voted on account.]

ART AND SCIENCE BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £247,240, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926 for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."—[NOTE: £123,000 has been voted on account.]

DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £178,020, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."—[NOTE: £88,000 has been voted on account.]

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £60,820, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1026, for Expenditure in respect of Houses of Parliament Buildings."—[NOTE: £30,000 has been voted on account.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clauses 20 to 40 stand part of the Bill."

Captain BENN: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is customary upon Bills of this character for the Minister in charge of the Department concerned to be present to answer any question, but I do not observe amongst the galaxy of talent on the Treasury Bench any Minister except the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing Scotland who is concerned with this Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health is present."] I think we ought to be shown the usual courtesy in these matters. It is usual on these occasions for the Minister in charge of the Bill to be present and it is customary for the Chairman on such occasions to accept a motion to report Progress.

11.0 P.M.

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Secretary for Health, Scotland): If I am in order in making the Minister's apology to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he may be willing to accept it After all, this is a Consolidation Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has had to go away in pursuance of his official duties, and he asked me to answer any questions which the Committee might desire to put in connection with this Bill. I have to apologise deeply for my, no doubt, total inability to fill the shoes either of the Minister of Health or of the Parliamentary Secretary,
but the Committee will, I think, realise that there is no intention of discourtesy. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are carrying on their official duties, and, as Under-Secretary, I have been asked to answer for the English as well as for the Scottish Housing Bill on what, after all, are technical points.

Captain BENN: If the Committee is content to let Measures pass without the attendance of the Minister, I accept is but I do point out, although I may be in a very small minority, that the House of Commons has its own self-respect, and that this is a precedent the like of which I cannot remember. In these circumstances I propose to let the question be put and negatived, and not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but it is an entirely new feature unheard of in the House of Commons before.

Question, "That the Chairman Jo report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — TOWN PLANNING BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee and reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I may again say what. I said in vain the other day, that I feel compelled to face a little unpopularity in this House, which, at times, from mistaken zeal and wrong standards of patriotic duty, sets in a sort of conspiracy against the wishes and freedom of the masses of this country. I am referring to the questions I have put to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War on the matter of the Army Supplementary Reserve. The Secretary of State for War, in explaining the Supplementary Reserve Force, on the 16th March, opened the subject with this grave and serious argument He said:
I want to say a word or two about the Supplementary Reserve which was started by my predecessor last year. The Supplementary Reserve was started in order to attract skilled tradesmen who are becoming more and more necessary to the Army. The demand is greater than the supply corning in normally through the ordinary channels.
A little further on the right hon. Gentleman said:
I cannot too emphatically repeat that the object of the Supplementary Reserve is to complete the Regular Army on mobilisation with technical tradesmen, since our peace establishments combined with our existing Army Reserve do not suffice for the increased numbers of tradesmen required, and, in order to avoid what might be fatal delay on mobilisation, we want a cut-and-dried scheme developed in peace time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1925; cols. 1887–8. Vol. 181.]
The right hon. Gentleman had referred to his predecessor in office, and the ex-Secretary of State for War, in the same Debate, spoke as follows:
If an Army is to exist it should exist upon efficient lines. You might as well abolish it altogether if you are not going to have it efficient."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1925; col. 1896, Vol. 181.]
The Secretary of State for War, as well as his predecessor in office, have both agreed that the Army as it stands is not efficient. Therefore, it may as well be disbanded. The Secretary of State for War has said that if it is not supplemented by enlisting people in particular trades, the delay in mobilisation would be fatal. Nothing could be more emphatic than these two assertions, that
it is of the highest importance to this country that the War Office should get into this Reserve Force men from particular trades in sufficient numbers, and assure the nation that the Army is efficient, and there would be no fatal catastrophe at the time of a sudden mobilisation. Nothing could be plainer than that the first duty of the War Office is to keep an accurate record of the men who are joining the Supplementary Reserve, and from what trades they are coming, in order that a sufficient number from each trade is coming forward. I put these questions one after another, making allowances for the democratic spirit of this House, and I have put the same questions in a roundabout manner in five different forms, and I am still without an answer, because this democratic House can easily be dodged out of an answer. The same Secretary of State for War tells me that the numbers of men who have joined and the trades to which they belong are not available at the War Office, and he does not think the information would be of sufficient value to justify the labour involved in collecting it from the Record Office where it is kept. It is simply astounding that the Secretary of State for War and his predecessor, having laid so much importance upon men in particular trades joining in adequate numbers, are of the opinion that the War Office does not intend to collect for the country the information that is available
For the first few days I was left under the impression that this information does not exist, but after a few pressing questions, when I saw the attestation form I found that Question 5 put to every recruit this inquiry "What is your occupation or trade?" Therefore, all the War Office have to do is to collect the answers under the heading of Question 5. If the War Office have any regard for the nation, and if the higher staff have anything like ability, the first thing they would do would be to get an honest and open record of the number of tradesmen from each trade who are joining If they have any regard for the opinion of the nation, which pays them and keeps them, their duty is to tell the nation from time to time how many men have joined from particular trades. If they have regard for public opinion and the democratic opinion of the trade unions it is their bounden duty to
come out frankly and say that they have put forward a scheme which is considered highly objectionable by the trade union members, that the country is in a state of danger, and that the Army would be better disbanded, according to the opinion expressed by the predecessor in office of the present Secretary of State for War.
The Secretary of State for War in another passage, made a remark about my party which shows that he has the same conception that is held by several of my colleagues on this side of the House He said:
No doubt the Communists do claim that in no circumstances should the Army or the Reserve be used in support of the civil power, but hitherto trade union leaders have never argued that the State is not entitled; if the police force proves insufficient, to claim the assistance of the armed forces of the Crown,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1925; col. 1889, Vol. 181.]
This knowledge of the Communist party's objection, on the part of the Secretary of State for War, may have been obtained in the dining-rooms or the smoke rooms of the Conservative Club. But I may assure him that that is not the full objection of the Communist party. The objection of the trade union worker, which is the objection of the Communist party, goes far beyond the objection that has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), who took part in the same Debate, and wound up with the pious hope that sweet reasonableness may prevail, and recruiting go on in full force.
I emphatically say on this question that the House is entering into a conspiracy against the right and freedom of the trade union workers. The whole position is this, that the men in the trade union movement are not unwilling to join because they are afraid of being used as blacklegs—that is only a part of it—but that a large section of the working classes now realise that an international war is as criminal an act as a civil war in the same nation. That is the fact and the factor which the Government and some of our friends seem to be very anxious to conceal at the time when they ought to tell the nation frankly about the new position. It is the duty of the War Office to get out these figures, and to publish them, not only once but periodically, and then, if they saw that the trade union workers realised their own consciousness
and refused to join this Supplementary Reserve, it would be the duty of the War Office to say so.
I submit the futility of the assurance of a few trade union committees and leaders here and there. The Communist party is right in its own attitude that an international war of the working classes against the working classes of any other country is as criminal and fratricidal as civil war at home. That is the outlook of the Communist trade union worker. That does not distinguish, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) seems to distinguish, that it is a sinful thing to blackleg and chop the head off a British railway worker, and that it is the height of patriotism to blackleg and chop the head off a German worker. Those times are gone. To-day a recognised official committee of the Trade Union Congress of this country are receiving in open welcome, as they ought to have done six years ago, the representatives of the Russian Trade Union leaders who are coming here to consult one another as to how the workers of Russia and Britain should unite together to fight the financiers and capitalists of Britain and any other country, and at that moment we are told that the same trade union movement is ready to throw trade union workers into the Army when they are going to fight Russian workers at the behest of their British capitalist masters. These are contradictions which are irreconcilable and, if allowed to go on, will create a grave situation which the Secretary of State for War may find will prove fatal at a time of mobilization, and according to the ex-Secretary of State for War the Army will be so inefficient that it may as well be wound up.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby as a Member of the International Trade Union Federation sitting in Amsterdam promised the German workers that if they were attacked the British trade unionists will stand by their side in an international solidarity of trade union workers. We are told at the same time that the British worker will join the Supplementary Army in order to go and blackleg the German worker to work the German railways and shoot the German down if necessary. These two things are not going to happen. It is the duty now of all statesmen to be honest and frank
on this position. We cannot talk diplomatic language in this House and go and talk the men's language in the countryside. There must be a common understanding, and that can only be arrived at by facing facts, and the facts to-day are—I for one, and my party, as such are not ashamed in stating it—that we consider it our sacred and religious duty to tell all the British workers to keep away from the Army as well as from the Supplementary Reserve, as long as there is an Army for fighting capitalist wars in one country or another. It is on that account alone that the railway workers and other workers are unwilling to join this Supplementary Reserve. It is the duty of the Government, and of the trade union leaders, to disclose the fact, if that is the fact. I would suggest that the Government should give us some indication that they now realise the gravity of the situation, and will give up the childish nonsense that it is of no public importance to collect these figures and publish them, so as to show the nation whether the Supplementary Reserve is going on all right, and how many Reservists are joining in particular trades like the railway workers, engine drivers, automobile drivers, electrical engineers, miners, sappers, and so on.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): I am sure all those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to remain as long as this have been very interested to hear the exposition of Communist principles to which we have listened. I have listened carefully, and I can find very little to which the hon. Member has really asked me to reply. I will deal with his last statement first. With regard to the suggestion of blacklegging, either in this country or any other country, I think it is realised by trade union leaders and trade unionists throughout the country that the Supplementary Reserve is not being recruited with the idea of blacklegging anywhere they are to be used for the assistance of an expeditionary force, but will only be used in cases of emergency. The real
point the hon. Member raised was the complaint that he had been refused information with regard to certain facts. Most hon. Members will appreciate that the War Office, like other Government Departments, try to give all reasonable information for which they are asked, and which they can reasonably be expected to have in their possession. the hon. Gentleman complained that he asked in vain for how many of each trade had already been enrolled in the Supplementary Reserve. I can only explain that that is not the basis on which our records are kept. I can tell him from week to week how many men have been enrolled, but we take our numbers from the various arms of the service into which the men are enrolled, such as Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers, Royal Corps of Signallers, Royal Army Service Corps, Royal Army Medical Corps. Royal Army Ordnance Corps, Royal Army Veterinary Corps, and nearly all the technical trades are common to these corps.
From the administrative point of view I have been interested to hear the way in which the hon. Member thinks the War Office should be administered and organised. At the same time as our organisation exists we want to know how many men we have in the different arms, and as regards trades, I can only say that up to the 21st of last month we had enrolled in category C 4,295 men. That is in five months' recruiting. Recruiting started only on 15th October. We have obtained over one-third of the total establishment under Category C. The total establishment is 12,682. Under Category B the total members enrolled to 21st March were 1,803. Therefore, the hon. Member can see that it is not a fact that the trade unionists of the country are refusing to come forward to join the Supplementary Reserve. They are coming forward quite satisfactorily.

Mr. MAXTON: They are not rushing in wildly, are they?

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing, Order.